*1 Charge Punishment Ex Garrin Wardner sixteen, Finally, point of error KELLER, Applicant. argues that was error
appellant “[i]t grant charge the trial court to refuse No. AP-75133. a single the effect of sentencing
at of Texas. Appeals Criminal Court of juror’s dangerous future ‘No’ vote that, question.” He contends ness as Oct. result, process due was denied deprived right fully have “a in jury
formed and individualized sentenc ing.” repeatedly the constitu- upheld
We have 37.071, 2(a)(1), tionality of Article informing jurors of the prohibits agree on the of their failure effects Appellant attempts dis- special issues.92 tinguish precedent arguing our “statutory against prohibition” there no jury of the effect of “no” informing dangerousness question, future vote prohibition in Article because 2(a)(1) is limited to “issues submit- (c) (e).” ted under Subsection Howev- (c) (e) er, expressly Subsections both (b), refer to Subsection which includes dangerousness special future issue. not entitled to have the Appellant was of the effect of their fail- jurors informed dangerousness on the future agree ure The trial court did not special issue. appellant’s in refusing abuse discretion its instruction. Point of error six- requested teen overruled. judgment trial We affirm court.
MEYERS, J., participating. 1998). State, (Tex.Crim.App.1999); (Tex.Crim.App. 6-7 v. Brooks Raby
OPINION J.,
COCHRAN, opinion of delivered the PRICE, JOHNSON, in which Court KEASLER, HERYEY, HOLCOMB, JJ., joined.
In corpus this habeas case we must de- termine whether a subsequent conviction indecency with a child applicant makes ineligible for street-time credit for his ear- burglary ner offense under Texas Govern- ment hold that it We not. is Applicant does for street- spent time credit the time on he man- Therefore, datory supervision. grant we relief.
I.
Applicant currently a nine- serving year sentence degree felony for the third vehicle, burglary offense an offense that he committed on October In parole while on this offense, applicant pleaded guilty degree felony second offense of contact, with a child a crime which he 7, 1993, had committed on June some four years earlier. He was sentenced to two years imprisonment on later this offense and had credit for time beginning served Thus, October 1994. applicant had fully discharged sentence though October even he was actually convicted of that offense until 1997. writ, In complains that he Keller,
Garrin Wardner pro se. credit, should have received street-time Arnold, D.A., Doug Asst. Georgetown, under Texas Government Code TX, Paul, Austin, Matthew Atty., State’s spent for all on parole mandatory TX, for State. court, however, release.2 The trial con- Applicant originally placed Applicant on deferred previously had filed several time- but, adjudication years, for four disputes in November with the Time Credit Resolu- adjudicated placed he was Department on ten tion Office of the Texas of Crimi- years straight probation. pro- pending nal last Justice. The one filed was was, bation was and he was Applicant sentenced when filed his writ. at that years prison. time, nine days presumptive within 180 of his of his “[ajpplicant “remaining portion”
eluded that if the sentence 508.149(a) of Government spent less than the time Code, due to his conviction for the mandatory supervision, inmate will *3 4 a by offense of with con- child receive credit for all of his “street time.” Therefore, applicant tact. is not entitled However, all are not inmates for spent he parole to credit for the time on street-time credit. Under Section of under 501.0081 the Section Government 508.283(c), only an inmate “other than Code.” 508.149(a)” person by described Section 508.149(a) qualifies. out a Section sets list II. specific of an offenses for which inmate is previously We that the have held ineligible mandatory for on release super- 508.283(c), purpose ap Section vision.5 This includes the list offense of plies parole mandatory or supervi Under child.6 Section occurring September sion revocation after 508.149(a), an inmate is for man- parole is “certain that violators datory supervision he “serving if is sen- will street-time if receive credit the ‘re for previously tence or has been maining portion’ of their sentence is less one of of’ these offenses.7 they spent than amount of time have is, “remaining That parole.”3 out on III. portion” greater of an inmate’s is sentence At in this case is issue spent parole than the time on mandato or applicant ry may he is entitled to supervision, receive credit hand, mandatory On release for “street time.” the other “street time” on that the date of the release date. There- the amount of time from fore, applicant person's court concluded the date of trial that release to issuance summons, was excused from the exhaus- remaining administrative warrant requirement. tion 508.0081 portion is to be served without credit for Tex Gov’t ("Subsection (b) does not to an inmate person’s the date of the the time from re- who, according department's computa- to the a per- For lease the date of revocation. tions, days pre- is within 180 inmate's son the date of issuance of the who on date, date sumptive parole man- release on subject to a warrant or summons is sen- ...”). datory supervision portion remaining tence the of which is less than the amount of time from the date of (Tex. parte Spann, 132 S.W.3d 3.Ex 392 person’s to the date of release issuance Spann, Crim.App.2004). noted As summons, remaining of the warrant or 508.283(c) wording opaque of Section is portion without credit an is to be served subject interpretations. Compare to different remaining equal por- amount of time P.J., (Keller, with id. at 398-99 id. at tion of the on the date issuance sentence alone, dissenting) (noting “[standing of warrant or citation. concerning wording the third class of offend Tex. Gov’t Code 508.283(c)] confusing”). §in is [listed ers reads as follows: The statute parte Spann, S.W.3d at 393. 4. Ex 132 (c) mandatory parole, supervision, or If the pardon person of a other than conditional (Tex. parte Byrd, 5. Ex by person described Section Crim.App.2005). may person required remaining portion serve the of the sentence 508.149(a)(5)("a Tex Gov’t Code second person was For a on which the released. degree felony degree felony a third under person the date of of a who on issuance Code”). Penal initiating warrant or summons the revoca- process subject to a tion sentence portion Id. remaining greater of which is than which his revocation Sep- occurred after the time the revocation is- warrant sued, According tember spent the Texas he had more time on release Department (TDCJ), Criminal Justice than he had left to serve and he is not 508.149(a).” applicant person was last Be- released on “described supervision cause on applicant spent October 2001. At more time man- (2 time, datory years days) had a scheduled discharge (less year), than he had left to Thus, date of October serve than he had 2 only years, question is whether he is a days months and remaining 508.149(a): an Applicant sentence. was re- *4 ineligible mandatory supervi- inmate for custody 12, 2003, to on turned November sion? May 24, on revoked 2004. He was out of custody years for 2 days. and 12 But mandatory “Eligibility for super give applicant TDCJ refused to credit for governed vision is at by law in effect this “street time” on based what it called the time the offense was committed.”9 his “previous” conviction indecency applicant “holding When committed his of with According a child. to TDCJ’s calcula- fense,” vehicle, burglary 1992 of a he tions, applicant mandatory had scheduled sup eligible was mandatory for release to 20, 2005, release date March and a eligible eligi Once he remains ervision.10 discharge 17, date of October 2006. regardless ble of whether the applicable above,
As noted Section 508.283 would mandatory has in supervision changed law grant applicant if, “street time” why credit at the meantime.11 This is he was re- Applicant 58, claims that he is Mabry, entitled to street- 11. See Ex 59-60 pre-2001 Mabry, time credit for several periods, (Tex.Crim.App.2004). time In this Court stated, but Section 508.283 apply does not to an inmate's “street time” for which the inmate’s Chapter The amendments contained in 263 parole September was revoked before Legislature of the Session Laws for the 74th parte Spann, (1995), 2001. See Ex 132 at September S.W.3d 394 which became effective 1, 1996, & Spann, n. 7. "[p]rior saving we stated that contained a clause. 3(a) change by prescribed Section in pa- section 508.283 law made only applies prisoner serving this Act role to a violator forfeited the benefit of street- a sentence for an offense committed (emphasis origi- credit.” Id. at 394. nal). noted, sifter the effective date of this Act. For We then section, purposes of this an offense amendments, Before the 2001 section committed before the effective date of this 508.283(c) merely person’s stated: “If Act if element the offense occurs mandatory supervision ... [or] ... before the effective date. person may required 3(b) prisoner serving A a sen- remaining portion serve the of the sentence tence for an offense committed before the person was released. The by effective date of this Act is covered remaining portion computed without law in effect when the offense com- credit for the time [RELEASE from the mitted, former law is continued to the date] [REVOCATION See date].” purpose. in effect for that 1, 1999, R.S., July Leg., Act 76th Laws, Legislature, Regular Session Session, 74th Tex. Gen. Laws 62. (1995). Chapter §§ and 4 Id. n. 7. These clauses reflect clear intention Legislature pris- the old law to parte Byrd, 9. Ex at serving oners a sentence for an offense prior September committed to the 42.18, 8(c) (Re- Thus, effective date. the law to those Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Art. pealed by Leg., Acts 75th ch. applies applicant, revisions whose of- 1, 1997). Sept. eff. fense was committed in 1990. offense, it is a
leased on earlier later had, then, though convict- even been subsequent plain conviction. Under child, ed of an offense 508.149(a), §of con- language previous which he would be for release on holding viction is one obtained before mandatory the laws supervision. Because conviction, holding conviction. after applicant when he applying Only if the conviction were burglary of a of- committed the vehicle (or holding offense offense fense, mandatory permitted his release inde- were one committed after supervision, he is not a conviction) cency per- would be a 508.149(a).12 by § 508.149(a).”13 by § son “described Furthermore, indecency-with-a-child ap- position14 is that inmates TDCJ’s conviction is not plicant’s position are not for street- applicant’s eligibility for which could affect 508.288(c): time under release on *5 statute’s offense that was committed after the Id. holding Even that convic- effective date. — S.W.3d -, -, Ervin, parte 12. See Ex the of enumerated of- tion were not on list 767846, *2, Tex.Crim.App. WL fenses, ineligible prisoner the still be would (“In (Tex.Crim.App.2005) LEXIS *6-7 mandatory supervision previous- if he had for legislature and made the went further list.”). ly the been convicted of an offense on inmates who had ever been those of convicted of one of the enumerated 14.Although TDCJ has not submitted a brief analysis Specifically, the for fenses .... bill case, a letter brief in in this it has submitted Regular Legisla the 74th House Bill 1433 of application, writ Cause different No,1991CR0997; 42.18, Session, amended Article tive Anguiano, Henry Lugo No. 8(c), supports the conclusion that Section WR-62,090-01, dealing ques- with the same all legislature to include the intended normally We do not consider materials tion. changes were intended serious offenses. arguments one case submitted in when 8(c), and Section Article Amend[] case, Procedure, deciding but because another prevent pre those of Criminal custody physical relief is in TDCJ's ineligible for viously of crimes TDCJ, its granted would be directed toward eligibility from for conviction, grant legal or denial of regardless the cur rationale for any future 29, 1995, offense”) (citing under Section 508.283 May “street time” credits rent Act of R.S., 1,§ Leg. 74th ch. 1995 Tex. should addressed. Gen. (now Laws codified in Tex. Gov’t.Code by an The construction of a statute made 508.149(a)) § & Comm, Corrections, House agency charged its en with administrative Leg., § Tex. H.B. 75th Analysis, Bill great consideration forcement is entitled (1995)). R.S. ambiguous and if when that statute con is reasonable and does construction Mabry, See Ex 137 S.W.3d at language. plain tradict statute’s ("When J., (Keasler, Tex. concurring) an inmate 311.023(6); Boykin v. see convictions, multiple one he will have Gov’t Code has 1991) (Tex.Crim.App. 785-86 818 S.W.2d date, governs his release conviction which plain language of a stat (stating ”[i]f recent, it is most contains either because results, or if the absurd ute would lead to sentence, longest has least amount ambiguous, language plain but rather is not It is the conviction that will of time credits. then, necessity, only out of absolute then greatest prisoner custody keep for the permissible a court to constitutionally is it prisoner's governing A amount time. consider, interpreta arriving at a sensible an “holding” could be for offense conviction tion, as executive or extratextual factors might such but he also have committed after interpretations of the statute or burgla- administrative first-degree conviction for history”); Appraisal instance, legislative Dist. v. Tarrant Legislature sought ry. In that 1993) Moore, (Tex. would make clear that ("Construction him, by the a statute administra for an because eligibility same means “convicted before the We believe street statute strictly depend upon should revocation” determin- parole date when by person is one “described Section ing eligibility street-time credit under 508.149(a)” revoked; they at the time are that in Ex Section TDCJ notes words, in other when does the Court parte Spann, this stated that or prior offender have current convic- 508.283(c) legislative purpose tion for an offense as listed “was to lessen the sentence of non-violent 508.149(a)? (versus parole parole violators violent vio- argues that legislature TDCJ has used lators) spent whose time out on the list of violent offenses set out remaining exceeded their sentences.”16 identify as a means to partic- position logical is a one—the TDCJ’s ularly pur- heinous offenses for various 508.283(c) legislature intended Section poses, but legislative reference to that grant only street-time credits to those in- categoriza- not mean that its does mates convicted of who were non-violent in lockstep eligibility tion is with for man- offenses and have never been convict- who datory supervision. TDCJ further notes of any ed violent offense. But that is not post that there is no ex concern facto 508.283(c) says. what Section It says that determining eligibility for street-time cred- its upon person based all of the inmate “other than a inmate’s convic- described 508.149(a)” tions—whether obtained before or after for street- “holding” commission offense— time credits. And a *6 at of the time revocation.15 508.149(a) “serving is one who is a previously sentence for or has been con-
Under TDCJ’s
interpretation,
victed of’
of the
phrase
one
enumerated violent
“previously
convicted”
in
508.149(a)
section,
§
felonies. In that
phrase “pre-
means “convicted
before
viously
commission of the holding
per-
offense”
convicted of’ means that the
when
determining eligibility
mandatory
for
su-
son has
of a
felony
been convicted
violent
pervision, but that
phrase
committing
same
in that
offense.17
before
agency charged
tive
meaning changes
its enforcement is
or whether that
like
cha-
consideration,
long
entitled to serious
so
as
meleon.
the construction is reasonable and does not
statute.”).
plain language
contradict the
of the
parte Spann,
16. Ex
Under 508.283(c) it than construction, credits under Section presumption is a tory there eligibility determining purposes does for is, consistency. That a word statutory mandatory supervision. for release single used within a phrase meaning generally bears the same Thus, meaning of plain that the we find that when a throughout that statute and “previously convicted” term statute, refers to the first 508.149(a) second statute when it is used the same within the first statute phrases words or re- ineligible are describe those who meaning their in the second it mandatory supervision will bear’ same as when lease on ineligible Supreme States those who are statute.18 As United used describe stated, time” credit under “the normal rule of stat for “street Court has utory is that words construction” “identical case, serving a is not this the same act are parts different used Ap- indecency with child. sentence for meaning.”19 to have the same intended burglary holding conviction plicant’s may way presumption give Although for indecen- his conviction occurred before legislature clearly if has intended Therefore, in- applicant’s cy with a child. result, to find different we are unable decency “pre- cannot called 508.149(a) legislature intend clear indication that the conviction under vious” convicted” him for street-time “previously ed that the term make conviction.20 on the carry entirely an differ- (Tex.App.-Houston Dist.] [14th 721-22 gible had statutory ("when construing a pet) on the previously been of an offense no Hall, list”); may take into consid phrase, Ex a court word "previ (using (Tex.Crim.App.1999) meaning the terms same or similar of the eration the "prior conviction” inter ous conviction” and an in the act or in language used elsewhere changeably § 508.149 with both terms under act When same other of similar nature. meaning a before the conviction obtained same or a similar term is used in the connec conviction). “holding” statutes, will be *7 the term tion different meaning given as in the same in one Needham, 18. See, Transp. v. e.g., Dept. Texas of other, something to indicate unless there is 314, (Tex.2002) ("In ascertain 82 S.W.3d 318 intended.”) (ci meaning a that different meaning, primarily to ing a courts look term's omitted). tations throughout statute is used how that term Statutory terms should be inter as whole. Inc., 561, Co., Alloyd U.S. v. 513 Gustafson act”) part every of an consistently in preted 1061, (1995) 570, 1 131 L.Ed.2d 115 S.Ct. Darden, omitted); (citations 121 Brown v. Ore. v. ACF Department Revenue (quoting 261, 495, 500, (Tex.1932) 263 Tex. 332, 342, 843, Indus., Inc., S.Ct. 114 510 U.S. (“Whenever legislature has used word in (1994)); Desert Pal- See also L.Ed.2d 165 127 meaning, with one sense and statute one Costa, ace, U.S. 123 S.Ct. v. 539 Inc. legis subsequently word in uses the same and (2003); 2148, 84 Commissioner 156 L.Ed.2d lating subject-matter, be same it will on the 250, Lundy, 116 S.Ct. v. 516 U.S. sense, using it in the same understood as (1996) ("The interrelation- L.Ed.2d 611 something in the context or unless there be provisions proximity ship and close of these things to that it intend indicate the nature of presents appli- case for statute classic meaning thereby”); Alexander ed a different statutory con- rule of the normal cation of 80, 204 S.W. v. 84 Tex.Crim. used in differ- that words struction identical ("In (Tex.Crim.App.1918) the absence to have act are intended parts same ent lan interpretation of the judicial direct (internal meaning.”) quotations the same construction, use of these guage under omitted). connection, substantially the same phrases in meaning undisputed, would their where - -, Ervin, S.W.3d at Ex legisla guide as the best seem to afford Cf. *2, Tex.Crim.App. WL intent”); Taylor, Guthery tive ambiguous plain or the mean- Applicant language is entitled relief. TDCJ an ing Legis- shall treat as inmate leads to absurd results that the and, possibly for release to lature could not have intended.3 applicant qualifies conducting inquiry, because for street-time In a plain meaning we credit, phrases credit him his out-of- in context and shall with read words and custody during according his latest release. construe to the rules of them Moreover, Copies opinion grammar usage.4 shall sent of this and common “[wjords phrases acquired Board have TDCJ-CID of Pardons or particular meaning, Paroles. technical or otherwise, by legislative definition or shall WOMACK, JJ., MEYERS and not accordingly.”5 be construed participating. by” B. “described
KELLER, J., dissenting P. filed a question is how to treat here opinion. statute, to another 508.283’s reference KELLER, Presiding Judge. 508.149(a). question The answer to that In Legislature added to Gov- found, in part, can be Government Code ernment provision 508.288 a expressly which states: “Unless awards street time credit to certain offend- otherwise, provided a reference to upon ers revocation of parole mandato- portion applies a statute or rule all ry supervision.1 This time credit does reenactments, revisions, or amendments of person to “a described addressing this the statute or rule.”6 508.149(a).”2 opinion equates The Court’s court, provision, the Texas our sister Su- phrase “a person Court, preme explained: “When one stat- 508.149(a)” with “a to whom Sec- statute, ute references another one must tion it applies” and construes look to the referenced statute to under- “previously convicted” to mean “convicted referencing stand the statute.... [W]hen respectfully before the I offense.” the referenced statute is amended or re- disagree with both of propositions. these vised, referencing incorporates the amendments revisions.”7 In accor- statutory
A. General construction reasoning, Supreme dance this principles juvenile Court held that a reference in the *8 statute, In construing sentencing a (Family we look to the determinate statute 53.045) (Pe- plain meaning § language its unless the Code to the murder statute 782, State, (Tex. ("applicant Boykin at *8 LEXIS 518 is not 3. v. 818 S.W.2d 785 Crim.App.1991). supervision release has because he previously degree been convicted of a second n. 4. Lane 933 S.W.2d predecessor of Penal Code Section 22.011 (Tex.Crim.App.1996); Tex Gov’t Code assault) (sexual and because Government 311.011(a). § 508.149(a) precludes Code re- from lease inmates who have been convicted of (Tex. Rieck, 144 S.W.3d Ex 5. predecessors”) (empha- such an offense or its Crim.App.2004); Gov’t Code Tex. supplied). sis 311.011(b). § § 1. Tex Gov’t Code § Tex Gov’t Code 311.027. (c). R.J.J., (Tex. 508.283(b), 1998). § 7. re
2. 508.149(a) 19.02) § ver- version of § to the version of current applied nal —the in in sion effect 2004. existence when the murder statute (for ju- committed offense was 508.149(a) § in effect The version of sentenced), being which was was venile inmate part: in relevant “An provides result, post- As a 1994.8 November mandatory supervi- may not be released to pas- treatment of “sudden September 1994 a sentence for serving if the inmate is sion juvenile sentencing to the applied sion” of ... previously has been proceeding.9 degree felony under Sec- or third second 21.11, his So, pre- tion Penal Code.”11 With Legislature specifically has indecency with in 1997 for reference how to treat statute’s scribed child, was, “a clearly applicant ex- statutory provision. Absent to another 508.149(a).” contrary, to reference press direction of the to the current version to statute is apply § did not It is true that statute, as of the date the ref- referenced at the time of revocation applicant in the This erencing applies case. (and him even fact does the referenced statute is true even when today). committed his When recently refer- amended and the has been offense, burglary “previously the words encing unchanged for sev- statute has been Article included in convicted of’ were not years. referencing statute es- eral The 8(c),12 predecessor § by any changes to the “updated” sentially 508.149(a). not add- Those words were statute. referenced 1996,13 change applied until ed serving “a a sentence only prisoner ap- §to 508.283 The 2001 amendment the effec- on or after on or an offense committed that occurs plies “any revocation appli- So of the amendment.14 tive date” 2001.”10 date September after child, with a to cant’s conviction provision applies time credit” “street conviction,” “previous defendant, then, if considered is the date his manda- even him for manda- not render So to the could tory revoked. supervision was sen- tory in the because meaning of extent revoked) (when serving committed before tence he is was applicant was year 2004 and, change by the 508.149(a), of the the effective date upon turns its reference longer no time he was provision of the former will meaning indecency offense.15 serving the of the then- upon an examination turn 3(a). Id. at 185-186. 8. Id. at Septem- effective Id. at 186. Amendments the time he committed 15. At voluntary the offense ber 1994 eliminated offense, indecency with a child was not on passion" a manslaughter and made "sudden 1997, 75th See Acts ineligible offenses. list of issue, on which the defendant punishment Leg., § 2. Had he committed ch. *9 proof, of in a murder carried the burden later, arguably would three months offense at prosecution. See id. 186. mandatory ineligible for have rendered been 856, serving § of- Leg., the ch. 11. while 10. Acts 77th fense, 2(a)(second degree § indecen- id. at see 508.149(a)(5). § 11. Septem- as of cy on list with child included amendments) Pen.Code and Tex. ber 1993 Proc., Art. Tex.Code Crim. 12. 21.11(a)(1) (d)(1992)(indecency a child § & of 8(c)(1992). § felony), degree but is a second contact Leg., § eff. ch. 13. Acts 74th would then become Sept. question But the present question happens the case is or not conviction in 508.149(a). § not of applicability The to holding be the offense. is question whether is “described Moreover, phrase “serving a sen- by” that It is provision. true that tence for” indicates that the time-frame for 508.149(a) with, § that begins “An inmate assessing the of a listed existence offense may be mandatory supervi- released to is the time the inmate would otherwise be if,” sion but that is the directive clause of is, eligible for release. That the inmate statutory provision. rest released, will not if even his time cred- clause, provision descriptive is the setting him eligible, its make otherwise if he is exactly forth what ineligi- makes a person serving a sentence for a offense. listed supervision. ble If the interpretation This consistent with the (§ 508.283) provision “street time credit” “discretionary mandatory supervision” had from excluded its reach “a to same which clear- subsection 508.149(a) whom applies,” then the ly period on the of possible centers time rule for giving effect to the current version release, original not the time the offense of the referenced statute would have re- committed: quired this Court to look to the various may An inmate not be released to man- applicability and effective date provisions datory supervision a parole panel de- (which themselves are almost never termines that: amended), inquiry and would have (1) the accrued good inmate’s conduct in construing resulted the “street time is not an accurate reflection of the credit” provision apply only to those potential rehabilitation; inmate’s
who are fact for mandatory (2) endanger the inmate’s release would supervision. by excluding But from the public.16 those who are by” “described The attentive reader will notice that 508.149(a), § Legislature dictated that (b)(in italics) directive clause of subsection we should look the current list ineligi- identical the directive clause found in ble offenses and determine appli- whether (a). Examining portions subsection other cant’s fall convictions within that list. help meaning a statute ascertain the “previously C. convicted of’ particular of a appropriate subsection is an here, practice,17 parallel construc- The Court phrase indicates that strongly suggests tion that both subsec- 508.149(a) “previously § of’ convicted tions have the same temporal focus. refers conviction that is course, § commission offense. Of 508.283 not concerned Rather, But the say statute does not that. but with release whether street time 508.149(a) refers to an inmate who “is credit is given upon revocation. But the serving previ- a sentence for or has upon been focus of release is a focus ously of’ a listed upon granted, offense. This the relief so in- 508.283’s phrase suggests Legislature in- corporation should result comprehensively tended to per- parallel cover all ascertaining focus: the existence offense, sons convicted of a listed of a listed offense at the time the time Long offense once See his ser- *10 vice Stevenson, offense was finished. (Tex.Crim.App.1996); v. State (Tex.Crim.App.1997). added). § 508.149(b)(emphasis granted credit would be revocation —the Using mandatory supervision. applicant’s case appropriate focus in
reveals that revocation, because, at time credit he had child, an offense the then-current with a 508.149(a). list found I Consequently, deny I would relief. respectfully dissent. ROMERO, Appellant
Israel G. The STATE of Texas.
No. PD-0911-04. Texas. Appeals Court of Criminal Oct.