Smiley, Rodney Elnesto
WR-31,454-03
| Tex. App. | Jul 17, 2015Background
- Smiley seeks release to mandatory supervision (MS) for a theft offense in Dallas County via a habeas corpus application.
- He argues TDCJ/BPP misapplies the controlling offense, delaying MS beyond eligibility date (May 13, 2013).
- TDCJ/BPP allegedly withholds notice and mischaracterizes the controlling offense to manipulate MS review timing.
- Smiley contends the controlling offense should remain the theft offense (static) and not shift to a later discretionary MS offense.
- He asserts releases should occur upon eligibility; improper policy renders MS eligibility and release illusory and violates ex post facto/retroactivity concerns.
- Even if his claim is deemed moot, he argues the broader policy legality remains justiciable under capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is relief to release Smiley to MS for theft raised in this Court previously? | Smiley: relief raised in WR-31,454-04; properly before Court. | TDCJ: relief not properly raised here. | Smiley's relief was raised and is properly before the Court. |
| Are Smiley's claims moot? | Not moot; ongoing HCR challenge to TDCJ policy harms him. | Claims moot after multiple denials of DMS. | Not moot; or, if treated moot, capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review applies. |
| May the controlling MS case change during an inmate’s incarceration? | Controlling offense should remain static; changing would enable manipulation of MS timing. | Controlling offense may shift based on review framework and policy. | Smiley’s position that the controlling offense is static is advocated; changing it is improper. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Dallas v. Woodfield, 305 S.W.3d 412 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005) (capable-of-repetition, evading-review mootness exception analysis)
- Ex parte Bohannan, 350 S.W.3d 116 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (mootness exception requires short duration and repeat risk)
- Ex parte Geiken, 28 S.W.3d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (release to discretionary MS based on notice issues)
- Ex parte Mabry, 137 S.W.3d 58 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (holding determines which conviction governs release date)
- Ex parte Retzlaff, 135 S.W.3d 45 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (custody scope and MS considerations)
- Ex parte Elliot, 746 S.W.2d 762 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (parolee custody and habeas challenge to convictions)
- Ex parte Thompson, 173 S.W.3d 458 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (MS eligibility and release timing considerations)