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:Stanley Wayne Hill pleaded guilty to felony DWI in February 2002 and was sentenced to eight years of confinement. He did not appeal. In his habeas petition, Hill contends that he was originally designated as a mandatory-supervision prospect, but that he has been reclassified as ineligible without explanation. In support of his claim, Hill provides copies of two inmate time sheets. On the first sheet, dated April 4, 2005, Hill is designated as a mandatory-supervision prospect with a discharge date of May 3, 2005. On the second sheet, dated Oct. 26, 2005, Hill is designated as not eligible for mandatory supervision, and he has a discharge date of Jan. 9, 2010. Believing that Hill had alleged facts that, if true, might entitle him to relief, the CCA held the application in abeyance and requested the trial court to resolve the fact issues related to applicant’s claim. The trial court obtained an affidavit from the Texas Department of Criminal Justice that states that 1. applicant’s offense is identified as not eligible for mandatory supervision release by statute; and 2. on April 6, 2006, the Board of Pardons and Paroles voted to deny Hill mandatory supervision and converted his sentence to nonmandatory supervision status pursuant to H.B. 1433. After considering the affidavit, the trial court made a single finding of fact: “The records of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice reveal that the offense occurring January 9, 2002, for which the defendant herein was sentenced on February 21, 2002, is identified as not eligible for mandatory supervision release by statute and not subject to flat calculated parole eligibility status by statute.” HOLDING:The Court of Criminal appeals denied the petition for habeas relief. The court denied relief, because the parole panel legally exercised its discretion under Texas Government Code �508.149(b) and decided that Hill, even thought he is statutorily eligible for release on mandatory supervision, should nonetheless be kept in custody because of his lack of rehabilitation and potential danger to the community. Hill retains his vested statutory entitlement to release on mandatory supervision, though it is a defeasible interest, the court stated. Under �508.149(d), the court stated, the parole panel must reconsider applicant for release to mandatory supervision at least twice during the two years after the date of its original determination. OPINION:Cochran, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which Keller, P.J., and Meyers, Womack, Hervey and Holcomb, J.J., joined. CONCURRENCE:Keasler, J., concurred in the judgment without an opinion. DISSENT:Johnson, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Price, J., joined. “Given the opacity of the [Board of Pardons and Parole (BPP)] communication to applicant, I am unwilling to presume anything about BPP’s intent. I would remand to establish what applicant’s actual status is and, upon return from remand, reconsider the merits of applicant’s complaint.”

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.