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:In this application for writ of habeas corpus, the applicant was sentenced to a 20-year term in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for possession of a controlled substance, committed in 1991. On Aug. 11, 1992, while in the custody of TDCJ, applicant assaulted a prisoner. On Nov. 12, 1993, while awaiting trial on the aggravated assault, applicant was paroled on the possession offense. While he was on parole, he was arrested on June 22, 1994, for possession of a controlled substance and pleaded guilty to the offense, for which he was sentenced to 25 years in TDCJ. His parole on the first possession offense was subsequently revoked. On May 23, 1996, applicant pleaded guilty to the aggravated assault offense pursuant to a plea bargain for a term of seven years confinement in TDCJ. The trial court ordered the seven-year sentence to run consecutive to the initial 20-year sentence applicant had received for the first possession offense. The judgment indicates applicant was to receive presentence time credit from Nov. 12, 1993, on the seven-year sentence. HOLDING:Denied. In Ex Parte Kuester, this court held that “completion of the sentence” in Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 42.08(b) has the same meaning as “ceases to operate” in Article 42.08(a). Texas Government Code �508.150(b) defines “ceases to operate” for purposes of Article 42.08 as the date on which the original sentence is served out in actual calendar time or the date on which a parole panel approves the inmate for parole release. Serving a sentence out in “actual calendar time” means serving the sentence in full, day-for-day, until discharge. So the date a sentence is completed is the date it is served out in full, day-for-day, until discharge, or the date the defendant makes parole on the original offense. Moreover, Article 42.08(b) requires a stacked sentence for the offense the defendant committed in TDCJ while serving his sentence for the original offense, if he has not completed the original sentence at the time of sentencing for the stacked offense. The phrase “has not completed” is in the present perfect tense, the tense used to describe actions that began in the past and continue in the present. The statute requires the sentencing court to stack the subsequent offense committed in TDCJ if the defendant did not complete the original sentence in the past and has not completed it in the present. The present time for purposes of Article 42.08(b) is the time of sentencing for the stacked offense. The defendant has not completed the original sentence under Article 42.08(b), if at the time of sentencing for the stacked offense, the defendant has not served the original sentence in full, day-for-day, until discharge, or he has not made parole on the original offense. And, the defendant has not “made parole” on the original offense, if his parole is revoked prior to being sentenced for the stacked offense, because his original sentence is still in operation, as he is serving his remaining sentence. The court holds that, under Article 42.08(b), a stacked sentence does not begin to run on the date the defendant makes parole on the original offense if his parole is revoked before the trial court sentences the defendant for the stacked offense. Consequently, applicant’s seven-year, stacked sentence for the aggravated assault did not begin to run on Nov. 12, 1993, the date he made parole on the original possession offense, because his parole was revoked before the trial court sentenced him for the stacked offense. Applicant alleges that he agreed to a seven-year sentence for the aggravated assault offense, to begin to run on Nov. 12, 1993, and thus it violates his plea agreement for the seven-year sentence to begin to run after Nov. 12, 1993. Yet nothing in the record supports his allegation that the seven-year sentence must run from Nov. 12, 1993, as part of the plea agreement. OPINION:Keller, P.J.; Meyers, Price, Johnson, Keasler, Hervey, Holcomb and Cochran, JJ., joined. Womack, J., concurred in the result.

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.