Ex Parte Daniel Lee Ainsworth
07-15-00091-CR
| Tex. | Oct 26, 2015Background
- Appellant Daniel Lee Ainsworth (a parolee with a prior felony) was arrested on a Parole Board "blue warrant" alleging assault (styled as aggravated assault with a deadly weapon) arising from conduct on Feb 27, 2014.
- Parole-related felony charge was later dismissed; county misdemeanor prosecutions (three Class A misdemeanors) based on the same facts proceeded in Potter County.
- Ainsworth filed a habeas corpus (art. 11.09) in county court challenging continued detention on the blue warrant; the county court denied the writ after a February 3, 2015 hearing.
- A unified bench trial on the misdemeanors resulted in convictions and sentences (one year jail and $4,000 fines on each count); Ainsworth appealed both the writ denial and the convictions; this brief addresses only the writ-denial appeal.
- The State argued the habeas claim is moot (Ainsworth is no longer detained locally and the blue warrant is no longer operative), the county court lacked jurisdiction over a parole revocation/post-conviction writ (Court of Criminal Appeals is the proper forum), and in any event the Parole Board acted within authority because the alleged violation was criminal, not merely administrative.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the habeas claim is moot | Ainsworth: county court should review unlawful detention on blue warrant | State: moot because Ainsworth was tried, convicted, served sentence locally and transferred; blue warrant no longer operative | Moot — subsequent developments rendered habeas claim moot |
| Whether the county court had jurisdiction to decide writ challenging parole custody | Ainsworth: any court can issue habeas for unlawful detention where detained | State: parole revocation/post-conviction habeas in felony context is within Court of Criminal Appeals/convicting court pipeline, not county court | County court lacked authority; Court of Criminal Appeals (or convicting court via 11.07 procedure) is proper forum |
| Whether the Parole Board erred by retaining the warrant after felony dismissal | Ainsworth: warrant title (aggravated assault) required release after dismissal | State: parole decisions may be based on conduct regardless of criminal labeling or outcome; board properly alleged criminal conduct (assault) and acted in good faith | Parole Board's continued custody was permissible; dismissal of criminal charge does not automatically invalidate parole action |
| Whether the 41-day resolution requirement (Gov. Code §508.282) required release | Ainsworth: warrant not released after 41 days | State: 41-day rule applies only to administrative/technical violations without criminal charges; here Parole alleged criminal conduct | 41-day rule inapplicable because alleged violation was criminal, so no forced release required |
Key Cases Cited
- Bennet v. State, 818 S.W.2d 199 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (habeas corpus is extraordinary relief; claims can become moot)
- Martinez v. State, 826 S.W.2d 620 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (pre-trial confinement claims become moot when applicant is no longer subject to that confinement)
- Board of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for the Eight Dist., 910 S.W.2d 481 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (post-conviction parole-related habeas lies with convicting court/Court of Criminal Appeals)
- Ex parte Elliot, 746 S.W.2d 762 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (parole is a form of restraint implicated in post-conviction habeas procedure)
- Ex parte Hoang, 872 S.W.2d 694 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (Court of Criminal Appeals' jurisdiction over post-conviction writs)
- Ex parte Schmidt, 109 S.W.3d 480 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (limits on county court jurisdiction to misdemeanor-based restraints)
- Ex parte White, 400 S.W.3d 92 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (describing blue warrants as Parole Board arrest warrants)
- Ex parte Okere, 56 S.W.3d 846 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (standard of review for habeas denials when legal issues predominate)
- Ex parte Layton, 928 S.W.2d 781 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (limitations on appellate courts granting habeas relief in non-civil contexts)
- Knight v. Estelle, 501 F.2d 963 (5th Cir. 1974) (parole revocation proceedings are not criminal trials; their purpose is to assess parole status based on conduct)