X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:The applicant filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that his parole was improperly revoked because the new conviction used by the Board of Pardons and Paroles to justify the revocation was subsequently reversed. The trial court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law, finding that the applicant’s parole was revoked because of another drug charge, which was subsequently reversed on appeal. However, this court remanded the matter to the trial court for further factual findings as to whether the Board of Pardons and Paroles revoked the applicant’s parole because he received a new conviction (subsequently reversed on appeal) and whether the board relied only on this new conviction, without considering any evidence, to support the revocation. On remand, the trial court made supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law: 1. the applicant did not testify at the revocation hearing; 2. he did not admit his guilt in any revocation hearing; 3. the revocation conviction is pending before this court under a petition for discretionary review filed by the state; 4. the applicant denied possession of a controlled substance; and 5. any plea in the underlying conviction was conditioned on the appeal. The record reflects that the Board of Pardons and Paroles relied solely on the judgment and the indictment of the conviction, which was reversed on appeal, without hearing any other evidence. No other evidence was introduced, and no other parole violations were alleged to support the revocation. HOLDING:Relief is granted. Because the conviction used to support the revocation has been reversed, there is now no evidence to support the revocation. The court has held, in the probation revocation context, that the use of a conviction which is on appeal at the time of the revocation may not be the basis for the revocation. Prince v. State, 503 S.W.2d 777 (Tex. Cr. App. 1974); Barrientez v. State, 500 S.W.2d 474, 476 (Tex. Cr. App. 1973). The court sees no reason to distinguish a non-final conviction or subsequent reversal of a conviction in the parole context from that in the probation revocation context. Here, the trial court made a finding that the applicant’s guilty plea and conviction was conditioned on the appeal. Because the conviction was on appeal at the time of the revocation, and no other evidence was relied on to support the revocation, the revocation was improper, the court concludes. OPINION:Per curiam.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.