Rivers, Richard Anthony
WR-44,786-06
Tex. Crim. App.May 18, 2022Background
- Applicant Richard Anthony Rivers filed a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus challenging TDCJ’s failure to recognize his entitlement to mandatory supervision on a 35-year conviction while he simultaneously serves a concurrent 10-year sentence that is subject to discretionary mandatory supervision (DMS) and BP&P review.
- The Court ordered briefing on two questions: whether policy bars releasing an inmate to mandatory supervision on one concurrent sentence while another concurrent sentence remains unreleased, and whether Ex parte Forward and Ex parte Williams apply.
- The majority concluded Rivers is entitled to a designation that he is on mandatory supervision for the 35-year sentence (a “paper parole”) and ordered TDCJ to calculate time in accordance with Forward, but denied immediate physical release because Rivers remains confined on the concurrent 10-year DMS sentence.
- The concurring/dissenting opinion agrees that Rivers should not be physically released, but dissents from granting the paper-parole relief without addressing cognizability and ripeness—arguing habeas should not be used merely to correct TDCJ paperwork when the fact or duration of confinement is unaffected.
- The dispute turns on interplay between Forward/Williams precedent (which govern computation and classification issues) and whether habeas corpus is an appropriate vehicle where relief would not produce immediate release.
Issues
| Issue | Rivers' Argument | State/TDCJ Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Whether Rivers is entitled to mandatory supervision/release on his 35‑year sentence despite a concurrent 10‑year sentence being subject to DMS | Rivers: He attained mandatory supervision eligibility on the 35‑year sentence and must be released on that basis | State: Rivers remains lawfully confined because the concurrent 10‑year sentence subjects him to continued confinement pending BP&P discretion | Court: Denied physical release; ordered constructive release (designation as on mandatory supervision for the 35‑year sentence) but Rivers remains incarcerated on the 10‑year DMS sentence |
| 2) Whether TDCJ must implement Forward/Williams accounting/classification (i.e., order TDCJ to treat the sentence as mandatory‑supervision eligible) | Rivers: Forward/Williams entitle him to classification/credit and designation on the 35‑year sentence | State: Implementation does not require immediate physical release when concurrent sentence controls | Court: Ordered TDCJ to follow Forward (i.e., calculate time and designate eligibility) resulting in a “paper parole” for the 35‑year sentence |
| 3) Whether habeas corpus is cognizable and the claim ripe when relief would not affect fact or duration of confinement | Rivers: Claims his entitlement to mandatory‑supervision designation is cognizable even if concurrent sentence delays release | Dissent: If relief cannot change fact/duration of confinement, the claim may be unripe and not cognizable by habeas | Court: Majority granted paper relief without resolving cognizability/ripeness; concurring/dissent would have addressed and denied such paperwork relief absent an effect on confinement |
| 4) Whether Forward/Williams jurisprudence for consecutive sentences applies equally in a concurrent‑sentence context | Rivers: Forward/Williams should apply to classification and time calculation regardless of concurrency | State: The functional effect differs when sentences are concurrent; application may not change release timing | Court: Applied Forward for time calculation and classification, but acknowledged different practical effect in concurrent context (resulting only in constructive, not physical, release) |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Forward, 258 S.W.3d 151 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (requires TDCJ to calculate time and classification consistent with mandatory‑supervision eligibility rules)
- Ex parte Williams, 257 S.W.3d 711 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (granted relief as to a conviction’s mandatory‑supervision eligibility and directed Forward‑style recalculation)
- Ex parte Harrington, 310 S.W.3d 452 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (post‑conviction habeas must challenge the fact or length of confinement to be cognizable)
- Ex parte Alba, 256 S.W.3d 682 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (plurality: habeas relief must seek change in fact or duration of confinement)
- Ex parte Lockett, 956 S.W.2d 41 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (cognizability requirement that habeas relief must affect fact or length of custody)
- Ex parte Weise, 55 S.W.3d 617 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (habeas not appropriate when favorable resolution would not result in immediate release)
- Ex parte Ruby, 403 S.W.2d 129 (Tex. Crim. App. 1966) (writ of habeas corpus unavailable to decide issues that could not lead to immediate discharge)