Evans, Shawn D
WR-82,748-02
| Tex. App. | Jan 26, 2015Background
- Applicant Shawn D. Evans (TDCJ #1387198) pleaded guilty in Harris County to possession of a firearm by a felon (primary cause 1029072) and possession of a deadly weapon in a penal institution (cause 1080203); sentenced to 15 years, concurrent, on August 15, 2006.
- Evans filed an Article 11.07 post-conviction habeas application asserting he was improperly denied release to discretionary mandatory supervision (DMS) and that his offense was eligible for DMS.
- The State answered: Evans’s offenses were eligible for DMS as of the offense date (June 1, 2005); Evans was given notice of a DMS review (Jan. 28, 2014) and was denied DMS on Apr. 14, 2014 for documented reasons (criminal history, GCT not reflective of rehabilitation, release would endanger public).
- The trial court adopted the State’s proposed findings, concluded Evans is eligible for DMS but that the parole board properly exercised §508.149(b) to deny release, and recommended dismissal of the writ; the court ordered the record transmitted to the Court of Criminal Appeals.
- Procedural/notice contention: Evans also claimed he did not receive some Court of Criminal Appeals mail (white card) and thus was deprived of time to reply to State filings; he did not allege denial of due process at the DMS hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eligibility for Discretionary Mandatory Supervision | Evans: his conviction is eligible for DMS and he should be released when calendar time + good conduct time meets statutory threshold | State: offense was eligible for DMS on offense date; eligibility exists but release is discretionary and may be denied under statutory exceptions | Court: Evans is eligible for DMS but eligibility alone does not compel release; eligibility established and recognized |
| Proper denial of DMS under Tex. Gov't Code §508.149(b) | Evans contends denial was improper because his offense was eligible and no deadly-weapon exclusion applies | State: parole panel documented permissible reasons for denial (pattern of offenses, GCT not reflective, release would endanger public); decision not judicially reviewable | Court: Denial was supported by documented reasons; board decision not subject to judicial review; denial stands |
| Due process / notice of DMS review | Evans alleges lack of adequate notice (and/or not receiving appellate mail) interfering with his ability to respond | State: applicant was given notice of initial DMS review (Jan. 28, 2014); no due-process claim was pleaded | Court: Applicant did not allege or prove a due-process violation regarding the parole review; due process requirements were satisfied |
| Pleading / burden for habeas relief | Evans: seeks habeas relief based on eligibility and alleged notice defects | State: applicant failed to plead and prove facts entitling him to relief; habeas requires proof by preponderance | Court: Applicant failed to plead/prove entitlement to relief; recommend dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Mabry, 137 S.W.3d 58 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (eligibility for mandatory supervision is determined by offense eligibility on the date committed)
- Ex parte Geiken, 28 S.W.3d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (due-process notice required before parole/mandatory-supervision review)
- Ex parte Rains, 555 S.W.2d 478 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976) (habeas applicant must plead and prove facts entitling relief)