Phillips, Sherron Dondriel
WR-82,437-01
| Tex. | Mar 17, 2015Background
- Phillips challenged Board of Pardons and Parole post-hearing notice under Texas Government Code §508.1411 after parole denial.
- He filed a Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 73 post-conviction habeas corpus petition challenging the notice.
- The Board’s notice allegedly failed to explain the reasons for denial with specificity tied to him.
- The trial court’s findings are part of the habeas record; the petition seeks relief for notice deficiencies.
- The issue is whether habeas corpus is the proper vehicle, or mandamus is needed to compel proper notice under §508.1411.
- The court may treat the habeas petition as mandamus relief when the statutory notice requirements are mandatory and ministerial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether habeas provides an adequate remedy when there is no parole presumption. | Phillips. | Board asserts no liberty interest and no due-process violation. | Habeas not proper remedy; no liberty interest; no direct confinement impact. |
| Whether the §508.1411 written notice satisfies due process. | Phillips contends notice is vague and non-specific. | Board asserts statutory compliance. | Notice must be specific to inmate; current notice failures warrant mandamus relief. |
| Whether mandamus is the proper relief to compel proper notice. | Phillips seeks mandamus to require reissuance with statutory specificity. | Board argues relief under civil administrative remedies; mandamus is drastic. | Mandamus is proper to compel ministerial compliance with §508.1411; habeas should be treated as mandamus. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lanford v. Fourteenth Court of Appeals, 847 S.W.2d 581 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (criminal-law matter includes civil elements; mandamus jurisdiction applies to parole issues)
- Armstrong v. State, 340 S.W.3d 759 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (criminal-law matter; mandamus authority noted)
- Ex Parte Geiken, 28 S.W.3d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (parole-related due-process considerations; notice issues raised in habeas context)
- Ex Parte Lockett, 956 S.W.2d 41 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (due-process and liberty-interest concepts in parole context)
- Ex Parte Walton, 422 S.W.3d 720 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (recent parole-notice considerations; procedural standards cited)
- Healy v. McMeans, 884 S.W.2d 772 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (mandamus prerequisites; ministerial vs discretionary acts)
- In Re Daniel, 396 S.W.3d 545 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (treating habeas petition as mandamus in certain contexts)
- Perkins v. Third Court of Appeals, 738 S.W.2d 276 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (mandamus as extraordinary remedy; right to relief requires no adequate remedy at law)
- Curry v. Wilson, 853 S.W.2d 40 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (parole-related mandamus and statutory interpretation guidance)