Ex parte Oliver
703 S.W.2d 205
Tex. Crim. App.
1986
Check Treatment

OPINION

WHITE, Judge.

This is а post-conviction application for writ of habеas corpus filed pursuant to Art. 11.07, V.A.C.C.P.

Applicant pled guilty to а charge of burglary of a habitation in the 195th District Court of Dallas County in cause no. W74-5362-N(A). The court found applicant guilty and ‍‌‌‌​​​​​​​​​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‍sentenced him to two years in the Texas Department of Corrections. No appeal was taken, and applicant served his entire sentence before making application for this writ.

Applicant claims his conviction should be set aside because it was based on a fundamentally defective indictment. The State in its response concedes that the indictment was defective because it fails to allege the intent to commit theft and fur*206ther recommends that applicant’s writ be granted.1

The validity of a fundаmentally defective indictment may be ‍‌‌‌​​​​​​​​​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‍challenged by a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte Ormsby, 676 S.W.2d 130 (Tex.Cr.App.1984); Ex parte McClain, 623 S.W.2d 140 (Tex.Cr.App.1981); Ex parte Fontenot, 550 S.W.2d 87 (Tex.Cr.App.1977). Applicant’s claim is not rendered moot because оf the fact that he has already served his entire sentence. This is because applicant remains subject to thе possibility of cont-raints on his liberty due to the existence of a prior felony conviction on his record. Appliсant is “restrained” so as to come under applicаtion of an Art. 11.07, V.A.C.C.P., writ of habeas corpus, even though he is not currently incarcerated. See Ex parte Ormsby, supra, at 131. Therefore, applicant has a right to have the void conviction set aside. The relief sought is granted. Applicant ‍‌‌‌​​​​​​​​​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‍is therefоre released from every manner of restraint in his persоnal liberty as a consequence of that convictiоn.

The Clerk of this Court is instructed to send a copy of this opiniоn to the Texas Department of Corrections and the Dеpartment of Public Safety.

It is so ordered.

Notes

. The indictment reads in relevant part:

“... in the County and State aforesaid, did unlawfully, then and there with intent to exercise control ovеr the ‍‌‌‌​​​​​​​​​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‍property of BARBARA WOLF, enter a habitation without the effective consent of BARBARA WOLF, the said owner.”

The language in the indiсtment is insufficient to state the offense of burglary becausе intending to exercise control over the propеrty of another is not in and of itself intent to commit a theft or felony. See V.T.C.A., Penal Code Sec. 30.02. Nor does this language рroperly track the theft statute. See V.T.C.A., Penal Code Sec. 31.03(a). One of these two alternatives is re-

quired to have a proper indictment ‍‌‌‌​​​​​​​​​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‍under Sec. 30.02(a)(1). See Daniels v. State, 573 S.W.2d 21, at 24 (Tex.Cr.App.1978), and the cases cited therein. Although Sec. 30.02(a)(3) doеs not require an allegation of intent, this subsection is not aрplicable in the present case because an actual or attempted commission of theft or a fеlony was not alleged in the indictment. See Sec. 30.02(a)(3). Sec. 30.02(a)(2) is likewise not applicable because cоncealment is not a basis for the offense charged. Thе indictment, not properly stating an offense under Sec. 30.-02(а)(l)(2), or (3) is therefore fundamentally defective for the offense of burglary.