Acevedo, Ezekiel, WR-86,412-01

Applicant Ezekiel Acevedo was convicted of possession with intent to deliver and sentenced to five years imprisonment.
He claims he was denied proper pre‑sentence jail time credit beginning April 17, 2012.
The claim was presented in an Article 11.07 habeas application to the Court of Criminal Appeals.
The court treated the claim as an illegal‑confinement claim (not a routine pre‑sentence credit claim) based on Acevedo’s assertion about when credit should begin.
The Court remanded for the trial court to make factual findings and legal conclusions about when Acevedo was held in any jurisdiction and whether the judgment awarded the correct amount of credit.
The trial court may hold a hearing, take depositions or interrogatories, consider its own recollection, and must appoint counsel if the applicant is indigent and requests counsel; the Court set deadlines for resolution and submission of findings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Acevedo was denied proper pre‑sentence jail credit	Acevedo contends he is entitled to credit beginning April 17, 2012	State contends judgment appropriately reflects any credit or that claim is not cognizable on habeas	Court construed claim as illegal confinement and remanded to trial court to determine dates held and credit awarded
Whether pre‑sentence credit claims are cognizable on habeas	Acevedo asserts relief via habeas	State may argue these claims are usually not cognizable on habeas	Court noted such claims are not typically cognizable but treated issue as illegal‑confinement claim given facts
Proper forum for resolving disputed factual issues about custody dates	Acevedo seeks factual resolution	State relies on trial court records	Court held trial court must make findings of fact and conclusions of law; may hold hearing, take evidence, or rely on recollection
Right to appointed counsel at hearing	Acevedo may be indigent and seek counsel	State not addressed in opinion	If indigent and requests counsel, trial court must appoint counsel under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 26.04

Ex parte Young, 418 S.W.2d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967) (procedural rule for habeas transmission to this Court)
Ex parte Rodriguez, 334 S.W.2d 294 (Tex. Crim. App. 1960) (trial court is proper forum for factual findings)
Ex parte Ybarra, 149 S.W.3d 147 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (construing pre‑sentence credit claims as illegal confinement in appropriate circumstances)
Ex parte Deeringer, 210 S.W.3d 616 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (same principle regarding treatment of credit claims)
Ex parte Kuban, 763 S.W.2d 426 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (detainee entitled to credit for time confined in another jurisdiction when a detainer or hold is lodged)