Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Brett Wesley Deeringer was convicted of felony theft and sentenced to eight years of confinement in the penitentiary. His conviction was affirmed in an unpublished opinion on direct appeal. Deeringer subsequently filed a postconviction application for a writ of habeas corpus raising five grounds for relief. HOLDING:Denied in part, dismissed in part. Four of the grounds in his Deeringer’s petition, the Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) stated, allege various instances of ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment and are thus cognizable on their face. The CCA held the applicant failed to allege facts that, even if true, would entitle him to relief on those grounds. Ordinarily, the CCA stated, it would simply deny these claims on the merits on an applicant’s first writ application. However, the court stated that Deeringer’s fifth claim alleges that the judgment of the trial court failed to reflect credit for all of the time he spent in jail prior to his conviction. Were this the appellant’s only claim, the CCA would dismiss it under its decision in Ex Parte Ybarra, the CCA stated. In Ybarra, the applicant raised only the single claim alleging that he was entitled to additional prejudgment jail-time credit. The CCA held that Ybarra may pursue a remedy for this defect in the judgment via a motion in the trial court for a judgment nunc pro tunc. The CCA then considered how best to dispose of such a mixed writ application. It weighed two options: dismissing the entire writ application or denying the substantive claims while dismissing the jail-time credits claim. The CCA decided on the latter course. The CCA therefore held that when an applicant files an initial postconviction application for writ of habeas corpus raising both claims challenging the conviction and a claim of the denial of presentence jail-time credit, it would dispose of the claims challenging the conviction on the merits, either granting or denying relief as appropriate, and then dismiss the jail-time credit claim unless that claim is rendered moot by a disposition granting relief on the merits of a claim challenging the conviction. OPINION:Price, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which Keller, P.J., and Meyers, Womack, Keasler, Hervey, Holcomb and Cochran, JJ. joined. Johnson, 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.