*1 Aрpellant rights by obtaining attorney informed of an was his because he was wor judge during arraignment at his 4:05 ried that he would not be able to afford 30, p.m. August p.m., At 4:25 2001. Judge explained one. process Lane appellant agreed to talk with Detectives appointment for attorney, of an and Ralph Barry Standefer and Moore. Stan- appellant then asked would like an defer read appellant rights his Miranda at attorney. Appellant Finally, declined. the outset Appellant of interview. sat offi suggestion there is or evidence of next to warning Standefer and read the cial Given read misconduct. the various him, along initialing right sheet with each ings appellant’s of rights, arraignment, his an stated therein. About hour into the misconduct, any and the absence official of interview, appellant agreed give a writ weighs this factor favor. the State’s appellant signed ten statement. Before Jones, that, at 125 (stating 833 S.W.2d statement, ap transcribed Moore read coupled warnings Miranda pellant rights his Miranda from the state misconduct, absence official de taking Thus, ment form. weighs the first factor fendant before a neutral magistrate was proximity, the State’s favor. As to ap intervening circumstance at sufficient to pellant was arrested and taken into custo taint). tenuate fac Accordingly, four dy around a.m. August 7:00 together heavily tors most weigh viewed initially Arlington He was taken favor that first appellant’s State’s such station, police but transported was later to written was his statement not tainted jail arraignment. for Mansfield He illegal arrest. Point of error five is over arraigned at his p.m. 4:05 inter ruled. thereafter, began immediately view at judgment The of the trial court af- began around 4:30 p.m. dictating He firmed. statement 5:40 p.m. at Nine and a half hours from appellant’s the time of arrest KELLER, P.J., in point concurred until his interview not so long it joins error five and otherwise the opinion particularly weighty becomes a factor for of the Court. State, it is so little State, appellant. favors v. Compare Bell WOMACK, J., concurred. S.W.2d 788-91
(Tex.Crim.App.1986)(concluding that one half to three hours before first pas
confession favored defendant but the
sage day before second confession State), denied,
favored the
cert.
U.S.
(1987).
107 S.Ct.
him his constitutional Judge process
asked Lane about the *2 Jr., Pro Spann
Lucian Se. Lee Drew, AA. District Katherine Assistant Dallas, Paul, State’s Attorney, Matthew Austin, for Attorney, State.
OPINION MEYERS, J., opinion delivered the Court, PRICE, WOMACK, in which COCHRAN, HOLCOMB, JOHNSON, J.J., joined. plea was convicted on
Appliсant Property of Theft of guilty for the offense less, sentenced to or $750.00 23, July 1991. prison term in on 15-year mandatory parole was released He (“RELEASE July 8, supervision 25, date”), May expiration with an date of parole- A (just years).1 20, issued on October violator warrant was subsequently withdrawn but was February was returned Applicant unclear, pertaining to taken making and certain actions dents We note that record Applicant’s exact of inci- record. it difficult to determine dates custody Department at the Texas If parole mandatory supervision [or] (“TDCJ”) person ... of a Correctional Justice on March other 508.149(a) described is re- Section January and re-released on *3 voked, the be person may required to 2000. This detention was for a new con- remaining portion serve the of sen- viction, the however, Applicant’s parole on person tence which the was released. 19, 2000, April was revoked. On an- person For a who on the date of the parole-violator issued, other warrant was issuance of a initi- warrant or summons but the warrant was later withdrawn on ating the process subject 22, Applicant again June 2000. remaining portion of 3, 2000, turned to August the TDCJ on greater which is than the amount of time January 18, 2001, on re-released from the person’s date of the release to Applicant’s mandatory supervision for this of date issuance of the warrant or 6, cause was not August revoked. On summons, remaining portion to be (“SUMMONS date”), relating a summons without credit for time from Then, to this cause was on Sep- issued. person’s the date of the release to the (“WARRANT/REVOCA- tember person revocation. of For a who on date”), a parole-violator TION warrant the date of issuance of the or warrant cause, was issued for this Applicant’s subject summons is to a sentеnce the mandatory supervision was revoked on the remaining portion of which is less same date. Applicant applied for street- the amount of time from date of the credit,2 time but was denied such credit by person’s the date issuance the TDCJ on street-time credit office June summons, of the warrant or the remain- 18, 2002, to not meeting “due the mid- ing portion is to be served without point.” Applicant applica- then filed this for an amount to the re- August tion on 2002. maining portion of the sentence on the date of the issuance of the or warrant Applicant correctly asserts that Texas 508.283(c) citation. Government applies Code to his situation. 508.283(c) Basically, Tex. says section Gov’t Code Ann. 508.283(c) 2004). (Vernon § He has no certain parole violators will receive street- or prior current convictions which would “remaining portion” 508.149(a),4 place him under and section their sentence is less than the amount of 508.283(c) “any applies revocation that they parole. Al- spent have out on occurs on or after September 2001.” 508.283(c) though section is worded in such (Vernon § 508.283 manner, confusing be simplified it can Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. Cockrell, 2004); see v. also Parker following 2-pronged into the test for (N.D.Tex. Aug. WL *2-3 purpose determining Applicant whether 2002). 508.283(c) Section reads: street-time receives credit:5 508.149(a) 2. 4. Street-time credit refers calendar time a Persons described under Section days for receives towards his sentence of the Texas Government Code include those spent parole mandatory supervision. guilty violent of certain offenses. Tex. Gov’t 508.149(a) (Vernon 2002). Code Ann. supporting 3. From the affidavits in rec- ord, merely it is 5. simplify unclear what date the TDCJ office test is This "mid-point,” comprehension. considered to be as well as for easier It is statute determining came how office to the conclusion that not to used sole as the test 508.283(c) Applicant mid-point. had met such effect of as a whole. provided has If, date, legislature pretation, on the SUMMONS6 (the Government Code Section “remaining portion” Texas Applicant’s states, Act”), “it which Construction “Code greater spent sentence is than the ... the entire statute presumed that parole, Applicant receives street- be effective.” intended Code Tex. Gov’t parole. time credit for (Vernon 2004). In addi 311.021 Ann. If, however, on the SUMMONS tion, “legislative his may court consider date, portion” “remaining Appli- to be at tory” “object sought and the the time is less than cant’s sentence ambiguity does not even when an tained” *4 parole, spent receives Applicant on However, Id. section 311.023. exist. at amount of street-time credit for the by latitude afforded despite broаd on parole. time spent “extra- Court considers legislature, this to be equation But the cannot be said history legislative such as textual factors” asking ques- a simple that without crucial plain language of the statute when the determining of purposes tion: For street- interpre literal “ambiguous” or when a is (whether “remaining por- time credit tation lead to “absurd results.” than the greater tion” of the sentence is “re Boykin, 818 at 785. Because S.W.2d on “remain- spent parole), time what does subject to two inter maining portion” is 508.283(c) Does ing portion” mean? 508.283(c) ambiguous, is pretations, section “remaining portion” merely part mean history legislative turn to therefore we remaining of the which is as of sentence meaning of the intended help determine (without considering the RELEASE date the statute. spent parole), of out or the amount on 2001, prescribed section 508.283 Prior part sentence dоes mean that forfeited the bene- any parole violator at remaining the RELEASE date less July credit.7 Act fit of street-time See spent The parole? on difference R.S., 62, 1, 1999, 1999 Tex. Leg., 76th ch. more possible interpretations these two (amended 2001) (current Laws 62 Gen. thoroughly examined below. version at Tex. Gov’t Ann. Code History Legislative 508.283(c) 2004)). 2001, (Vernon But statute, amended, interpreting adding When sub- section 508.283 was focuses “on the literal text of Act of changes Court to the statute. stantive 1197, R.S., 08, 2001, Leg., to dis ch. question attempts] May statute in 77th fair, The objective meaning goal of that Laws 856. cern the 2001 Tex. Gen. Boykin its to lessen sentence text at the time of enactment.” amendment was (versus (Tex.Crim. 782, State, violent parole v. violators 818 S.W.2d non-violent violators) spent out on statutory parole To inter whose App.1991). assist with amendments, section 7. Before the 2001 Note that the SUMMONS date is used 6. 508.283(c) person’s pa- comрuting parole, merely rather the time on stated: "If date, because section mandatory supervision than the WARRANT ... role ... [or] 508.283(c) says the issuance "on the revoked, may required serve person be initiating revo- of a warrant or summons remaining portion of the sentence on _” process cation Code Ann. Tex. Gov’t released. The remain- person which 508.283(c) 2002) (Vernon (emphasis add- ing credit for the computed without portion summons, ed). Applicant to requesting The date] [REVO- [RELEASE from the hearing pre-revocation and thus appear for a July 76th Act of date].” See CATION starting process, was issued Au- the revocation R.S., Leg., 1999 Tex. Gen. Laws gust 2001. The warrant was not issued September until parole remaining exceeded greater their sentence. than the Hearing on Tex. H.B. sentence on the RELEASE date would Before Comm, Corrections, Leg., House on 77th Applicant any receive street-time credit. (Mar. 2001) (statements Repre- R.S. simply Such an outcome does not make Gallego Rodriguez) sentative and Victor situation, sense. Applicant’s had (audio at %vww.house.state.tx.us/commi- years of a 15-year tees/audio77/200.htm, 1:17:15).8 at begins his RELEASE date. He spent over specifically amended statute states But, parole. out order for him (persons that certain violent un- offenders to receive street-time credit for that 5- 508.149(a)) der forfeit street-time credit if year period, Applicant would have to com- parole their is revoked. It articulates that plete parole the entire time of almost 10 parole or mandatory supervision “of (because 508.11/,9(a)” person described Section the sentence on the -just RELEASE date— revoked, then the does greater less than 10 —would ceive credit for out any parole. *5 any full parole period less than that 508.283(b)(Vernоn Tex. Gov’t Ann. Code amount). Applicant would thus have to 2004) added). (emphasis Before the serve almost 10 more out to finish amendment, that section had not specified his sentence. Such an any particular persons, class of had 508.283(c) meaning- would render section applied parole uniformly. to all violators only less credit because would time Id. Additionally, the amended section the remaining already where sentence had 508.283(c) that, provides cir- under certain fact, been completed. under such an (those cumstances, persons some not fall- 508.283(c) interpretation, the amended 508.149(a)) ing provisions of retain essentially would have the same effect as street-time credit parole after their 508.283(c) 508.283, the former section and mandatory supervision is revoked. Id. superfluous. would thus be Clearly, adding such language was for the purpose distinguishing benefitting of hand, if “remaining On the other the completed certain offenders who had more portion” portion of the sentence remaining than half of their sentence on remaining on the date RELEASE less otherwise, parole; there would have been spent parole, Applicant time on would change no reason to the statute the from “remaining have a of portion” a little over original construction. years (approximately at the 4½ 5-plus years pa- RELEASE date less on easily can illogical impact
One see the role). on Applicant’s parole Because first possible interpretation the of “remain- greater roughly would than be 4½ ing portion” would have on the effective- sentence, 508.283(c). Applicant of the would example, ness section For if “remaining the ... without portion serve “remaining portion” meant refer was remaining portion credit for ... the only the of the sentence remain- date, date].” on sentence at ing [WARRANT RELEASE without Tex. (Vernon 508.283(c) for on spent parole, then Gov’t Code Ann. 2004). spent event that parole Applicant get on was This means would Thus, subsequently policies arguments 8. HB was vetoed made at However, Governor June on hearings equally applied HB can be exact same included in HB portions the identical of HB 1649. September which became effective (5 years), parole on time served up on parole credit for the time street-time on for his time get would date. offender to WARRANT sentence His total parole. hearing by public made at Comments year. 1be by the Gallego and Representative State Board of of the Texas former chairman (comments Representative Id. at 1:18:15 Paroles, Rodriguez, Pardons and Victor un- a clear example gives This Gallego). equation help that thе to deter illustrate intended derstanding legislature “remaining portion,” purposes mine the the RELEASE portion” “remaining 508.283(c), be the sentence re should spent parole. less date less maining as of RELEASE hearing, At the parole. Case Law pointed remain Rodriguez out that specifically deal Few cases greater ing portion of Cockrell, 508.283(c). In Ross v. section has out person amount of time a been (N.D.Tex. September 2002 WL 508.283(c) “no jail, has ef then section 2002), filed for a writ petitioner Hearing on Tex. H.B. 1585 fect.” Before corpus parole after his was revoked habeas Corrections, 77th the House Comm. on credit to refused street-time (Mar. 2001) (at 1:28:30) (com Leg., R.S. * 1. Id. at sentence. wards a com Rodriguez). Victor Such ments of un was not a petitioner, who subtracting option ment reinforces the 508.149(a), pa was released der section *6 parole time from the RELEASE date be years 11 out of remaining for the role ac cause it illustrates that section 508.283 “766 15-year spending After sentence. tually has the same effect as the former his petitioner the had days parole,” on (forbidding any street-time credit 508.283 First, Id. the court noted parole revoked. revocation) appli after unless an parole that, petitioner Applicant, because like remaining cant’s sentence is less than the 508.149(a), not a under section was spent on The fol parole. amount of time after parole was revoked and because by lowing given similar to one example, 508.283(c) 1, 2002, “section September Representative Gallego at the same hear he entitled [controlled] [was] whether ing, impact further clarifies the of the decision, the rendering its Id. credit.” to section 508.283: amendment 508.283(c) did reasoned that section court a non-violent offender who is Assume credit рetitioner not afford the street-time 10-year to a term in sentenced remaining sen “[p]etitioner’s because the TDCJ, years 4 in who serves and who is years greater of 11 [was] tence in parole 1994. At released on Though Id. days spent parole.” he on 766 years. 6 point, remaining sentence is peti did not afford the the facts Ross has years parole, 5 on the offender After any inter credit under tioner street-time law, his revoked. Under the old parole the court “remaining portion,” pretation required be to serve offender would “remaining por interpreted apparently sentence, 6-year making his the entire remaining at tion” mean (4 in years prison, commitment 15 total date, tak RELEASE without petitioner’s out, Under prison). and 6 more It spent parole. into on account ing offender was H.B. because the appears court first true that non-violent, at the date because as of “remaining portion” calculate portion of his remaining revocation the spent parole on date less time (6 years RELEASE years at release less sentence = began the TDCJ year) by stating “[w]hen less than the on parole process revoking parole, part Petitioner of the sentence at the RE- date, had more than [sie] eleven LEASE on spent parole. less time 15-year on his sentence....” (empha- Id. is granted. Relief The Texas De added). Using
sis the date when the revo- partment of Criminal Justice time credit process cation began would impliedly mean office hereby ordered to Appli award that the court figured por- cant street-time credit to the by tion taking the RELEASE date and spent parole out for this cause. subtracting spent parole up the time until the process commenced. Copies opinion of this shall be sent sentenсe, But petitioner 15-year had a Department the Texas of Criminal Justice spent jail, spent then 3½ office, Applicant’s credit so that days and 36 If parole. court had street-time may calculated in ac- indeed used the RELEASE date less time cordance holding. with our spent on parole, petitioner only a remaining have had of years KEASLER, J., concurred and 5 months.9 The way for the judgment. Petitioner have had “more than eleven years remaining 15-year on his sentence” KELLER, P.J., dissenting filed a would be for court to have calculated HERVEY, J., opinion, in which joined. the “remaining portion” as of the RE- date, KELLER, P.J., regard dissenting LEASE without filed to time HERVEY, J., on parole. opinion joined. out This Court is in which not bound decision, the Boss and to the extent agree with much of the Court’s reason- decision conflicts with what we construe as ing disagree but must with the amount statute, accurate granted. The Court orders we declinе to follow. proper interpre- that applicant be awarded “street-time *7 tation “remaining portion” of re- is the to the he spent out on of maining portion the sentence on the parole for this cause.” As will explain date, RELEASE less pa- below, applicant is entitled to for role. time, some of his all for of it. Conclusion Principles statutory A. of construction After a careful analysis, we have deter- that, statute, mined of possible interpreta- interpreting the two a employ When we short, “remaining tions of portion” Boykin in section the familiar standard.1 508.283(c),only give one will interpretation plain meaning ren- we effect to the of the der the statutory possible, statute effective and consistent text make when and use legislative “Remaining with intent. of por- extratextual factors when we 508.283(c) tion”in turn section refers to that must.2 I to the statute us. before remaining plain analysis 9. The sentence would A meaning have been 11 2. includes constru date, ing any with at words accordance technical the RELEASE less 2 particular meaning acquired by legislative or parole, 1 month on a for sentence otherwise, or definition TEX. GOV’T CODE of about and months. 311.011(B), giving effect to the all lan possible. guage reasonably the text State, (Tex.Crim. Boykin v. S.W.2d 782 State, (Tex. Campbell v. S.W.3d App.1991). Crim.App.2001). (one who is de- offender “aggravated” B. The statute (2) 508.149(a)); “non-aggra- a by scribed provides part: in relevant The statute has more time left offender who vated” (b) mandatory supervi- If parole, the the has sentence than he his sion, person pardon conditional or (3) street; offender non-aggravated 508.149(a) by Section described than less time left on sentence who has voked, person may required be the Second, for has on the street. of the sen- serve the ap- the statute purрoses, street-time-credit person which the was released. tence on the first two classes pears to treat remaining portion computed same, dif- third class is treated while the credit for time from without Third, appears to ferently. the statute person’s of the the date leniently class more treat the third revocation. is, two; the statute affords first (c) mandatory If parole, supervision, persons time credit the third class pardon person of a other or conditional first two classes. is not available person than a describe Section Fourth, lan- parallel the statute contains 508.149(a) revoked, person may conjunction all three guage used required remaining portion to serve the phrases people. Specifically, classes person on which the “without credit” “remaining portion” and person For a who on the date released. parallel in a are with all three classes used of issuance of warrant or summons Any fashion. statute process is sub- initiating all of these take into account four should remaining por- ject to a sentence the observations, lan- especially parallel greater tion of than the amount which present the crux of the guage, which is from person’s of time the date problem. statutory construction release to the date of issuance 'of the summons, warrant “remaining portion” C. portion is to be served without credit observes, time from of the per- correctly the date con- As the Court son’s release to the date of revocation. portion” struing phrase “remaining For a who on the date of issu- the time of “remaining portion at mean ance of the warrant or summons is sub- render much of statute release” would remaining por- ject a sentence the no оne would ever meaningless because *8 (c). tion of which is less than the amount of time under subsection receive credit the person’s time from the date of “remaining interprets The Court therefore lease to the of of the war- date issuance uniformly portion refer to the portion” summons, remaining portion rant or the remaining the the on the date of sentence is be served without credit for or summons is- parole revocation warrant remaining amount of time to the however, believe, phrase I that the sued. portion on the date of of the sentence em- things when refers different issuance of the warrant or citation.3 of statute. parts in different the ployed above, my understanding in have indicated the are Some observations about statute “remaining portion” First, italicized of with the there are three classes order. (1) portion the referring to the of phrаses in described these subsections: people 508.283(b), (c)(italics for the italics and bold-face. § below the reason TEX. GOVT CODE added). explain type and bold-face I shall sentence on the date of legal system time credits have the (the remainder”) “big bolded “re- meaning attaching the specialized leg- to a phrases maining portion” referring to the deprive islative directive portion of time Legislature credits. When the per- (the or the warrant summons issued credit, giving mits the of calendar time bit). not, juncture, leftover I will at this that always credit is for time served my address reasons for this understand- capacity.4 Legislature some And when the ing, because the issues in case are permits or requires denial of calendar time complicated enough, and there is more credit, that denied credit relates important issue I wish to focus upon. by already the defendant. D. “without credit” herе, Aside from the statute at issue two statutory provisions legislative involve per- meaning phrase “without denying mission for calendar time credits: assessing credit” critical to the amount 1) 508.283, § of time credit as due confinement served a condition of not say phrase Court does what the should community supervision, which is never mean. The fact that the Court all awards 2) credited,5 county confinement in the on the that street means jail pending jail felony of a state phrase being applied “without credit” is to probation, which can or be credited denied something other If an time. the trial am court’s discretion.6 I gets inmate for time in pris- any not aware of statute in which the (which does), he all and for street time Legislature speaks denying calendar (which does, Court), according to the time credits for time that was never served period left to which “without in any capacity, but the Court’s construc- credit” apply can time remaining implies tion of the statute here that (the bit). after the warrant issues leftover Legislature has done so for cases which words, In other the Court holds all 508.283(c) applies. except is credited time covered credit” phrase. “without While I believe 508.283(e) IBut believe that conforms statutory clearly suggests a legislative regarding custom denial interpretation, different resort rendering alone, Standing calendar time credits. to extratextual sources of construction un- concerning wording the third class my necessary, interpretation in ac- also may confusing. leg- offenders But the cord extratextual factors. usage
islative upon becomes clear examin- meaning 1. Plain ing language relating to the first two classes, classes. For those The Court’s does not take specialized meaning into computed account the sentence is *9 PROC., PROC., 4.Sеe TEX. CODE CRIM. Art. TEX. CODE CRIM. Art. 42.03 2(a). 15.18(a)(2)(credit served), § for time 42.01 l(18)(same), 2(a)(credit § § 42.03 for time PROC., 6. TEX. CODE CRIM. Art. 42.12 cause”), (cred- "spent jail § 3 in in said 42.03 15(h)(2). § Equal But Protection Clause spent jail pending appeal), it for time in requires of the Fourteenth Amendment that 3(b)(credit spent 42.031 for time on work time credited where the offender "was release), (credits §§ 42.09 & 71 earned under indigence post to bond to unable due sentence), applied Article 42.03 to 42.12 ... was sentenced to maximum sen 15(h)(2) (3)(credit & for time in coun- Harris, Ex tence." Parte 946 S.W.2d revocation) ty jail pending or state 1997). (Tex.Crim.App. supervi- on the street time from that served for the “without credit served revocation, that has the date of revoca- The time the date release to sion. after time).7 (i.e., served, for street specifically tion” without credit is not yet to be say nothing the time about provisions to take there is need ferred to because of- Does that mean the revоcation. being that time from any prevent action after the time gets fender credit for not does Just as statute credited. revocation, though time has after even incarceration, time served under address form, any shape, in not served been yet not not address time the statute does Legislature course not. The fashion? Of served. deny credit affirmatively not have to does works, consider how this To illustrate any for that has never been served a convicted following hypothetical: has capacity. when time been It eleven person is sentenced Legisla- manner that the served some years, four paroled after prison, gets upon specifically allow or ture is called years later. The follow- is revoked three So, for that time. for the disallow credit (Chart 1), depicts sequence ing chart classes, Legislature has disal- first two are and how time credits оf of events credit for the time from the date lowed for each event: calculated release the date revocation—time Chart
Class 1 and offenders statutory language the time credit statute works under How yrs4 yrs yrs time not prison time street time credited not credited not (because credit” (because (“without it was yet served) not served) language, 508.283(b), (c)) statute, statutory consis- Treating to the the defendant
According interpretation for tently requires the same hypothetical in this seven has language re- parallel He “without credit” remaining at the time of revocation. third class of offenders. lating actu- to the gets credit for four he words, credit for served, phrase “without ally get he credit for other does be- an amount of time three-year period occurring date of of the sentence on the and revocation because tween release dеny construed says so, and does issuance” should be credit statute already of time that has four-year period credit for a get period fashion. To illustrate some revocation because he has not been after *10 parallel respects interpretation served it. added). 508.283(b), (c)(emphasis §7.
400 language, modify hypothetical to fit is served with a revocation warrant four the third class of offenders: a convicted later. 2 depicts sequence Chart is sentenced to eleven in of events and how the time credits should prison, gets paroled after four years, and be calculated: 2
Chart
Class offenders How statute statutory works
revocation release warrant yrs yrs 3 yrs prison time street time yet time not credited credited not credited not credited
yr1 yrs3 (because it (street (“without it (because credit” was served) minus time language, yet not served)
“w/o credit”) 508.283(c)) interpretation Under the Court’s graphical “withоut credit” clause. A de- statute as it relates third class of piction interpretation ap- Court’s offenders, however, all time is credited pears in Chart 3: except for the encompassed by
Chart 3
Class 3 offenders How the time credit statute works under the Court’s interpretation
release warrant yrs yrs yrs street time prison credited not credited
(because (“big remainder” minus (“without credit” served) “w/o credit” time) language, 508.283(c) problem If time not credited is the time that absurd applied by clause, results occur it is covered credit” “without evenhandedly to the first and second then the first and second class offenders— offenders, classes offenders. For these the ones who supposed get are says, the statute “without credit for time credit received the third class— time from person’s else, the date of the will get everything which (i.e., time). to the date of revocation” includes time not servеd on their
401 sentence, the four instead of left on his hypotheti- to the first Applied sentences. cal, result interpretation would Legislature: the Court’s contemplated only three having in the defendant
Chart and offenders
Class 1 interpretation under the Court’s credit statute works How the time yrs4 yrs yrs time not prison credited credited credited minus remainder” (“without (“big it was credit” (because time) credit” “w/o served) language, 508.283(b), (c)) gets telling interpreta- modified so that defendant
What is most about year only a on the gets spending after tion is that the sooner the defendant voked revoked, street, six If then the defendant obtains gets. the more time credit he of four: eleven-year-sentence hypothetical credit instead
Chart 5
Class 1 and 2 offenders interpretation How the time credit statute works under the Court’s release revocation
4 yrs yr yrs prison street time time not credited credited (because (“big it was credit” (“without remainder” minus “w/o
served) language, credit” time) 508.283(b)(c)) language first interpretation paralleled results have
The Court’s creates (c) “with simply subsection said opposite part of the manifest that are exact credit” for credit” rather “without legislative intent. the war- from the date release to complexity language “without rant date. The Court’s to the credit for an amount of language suggests that the the statute portion of on the the sentence my inter- confusing, while awkward and of issuance” is a further reason is com- that the pretation shows reject Legislature sim- the notion plex clear. confer all street ply wanted to credit for Legislature simpler There are much and clearer There is no reason for time. for time directive, of time credit ways convey such a had that address issue And there that has not served. Legislature could been been the intent. The *12 reаson for Legislature negatively to use the words “an amount of time grant word a of time credit unless equal to” not means statute does refer Legislature withholding something were in to period, that time ato different process. Under the interpre- Court’s period from an equal which amount of time tation of this language, Legislature is to be deducted. Moreover, withholds nothing. even one Finally, my interpretation shows
were assume that the Legislature might Legislature’s treatment the third negatively use worded for this class of nicely offenders dovetails with its purpose, the Court’s interpretation does treatment of the Legis- second class. The not account for presence of the lan- scale, lature has set aup sliding in which guage “an equal amount of time to.” The gets the offender more credit for street Legislature could simply have stated: longer successfully time the he remains on “without credit for sliding street. The scale works of the sentence on the date of issuance.” requiring the offender to serve double his fact, Legislature has shown that it (i.e. remaining time his + remaining time does not need to use the words “an amount time), an equal amount of time equal to” to to a specific refer which essentially means that the offender period that is not to be credited. It did will get days two of street time credit for not use those words in connection every day of past street time serves first second classes offenders when mid-point. doubling But this method of it provided that such offenders would offender’s works serve their sentences “without credit for where the offender’s street time exceeds person’s the time from the the amount of time left. If the release to the date offender’s of revocation.” When Legislature withhold street time is less than wants the amount of time left, particulаr time, for a period doubling it simply actually the time left would period, refers that time away not a “an result in taking time served under amount of time period. incarceration, to” that time as shown Chart 6: Chart 6
Class offenders How the time credit statute would work if rules for Class offenders were applied Class 2 offenders
4 yrs yrs yrs prison time street time
yrs3 4yrs not credited not credited
(1 yr prison (“without credit” (because it is time lost) language, served) (c))
508.283 course, Of the Legislature did not provision intend the second class under a to take away gives time served under incareera- no street out- credit-the same So, Legislature tion. treats offenders come that reached under *13 summons or warrant with a class of and served legislative formula for third pinpoint Must exactly years later. we four offenders, yield since that formula would whether has or the minute hour of the credit for members (positive) less, so that we can deter- more or second class. a cred- gets lengthy time mine whether he a in My interpretation gap also solves recognize provisions if it? Not we an the statute: what do with offender are in- three offenders applicable to class time equals whose street applicable dovetail with those tended to only statutory language The refers time. formula Applying class. the second “greater time that is persons with street midpoint offenders to a for class three than” or “less than” the time. exactly yield would result offender credit, get any the case of an offender sentenced street Consider so he would not zero years, years, four time credit: to twelve released after Chart 7
Mid-point offenders statutory language How the time credit statute works under the 4 yrs yrs yrs not prison time yet served not credited not credited (“without (because it was (because credit” served) language, yet served) not
508.283(c)) light in interpretation And not that makes sense this would be a harsh result under in statute. language my sliding interpretation because of the example, nature of the scale credit. For only day past who one serves 2. Extratextual factors get only days time
midpoint two above, Boykin requires a As mentioned credit, one rather than the four and analysis extratextual meaning before plain day credit he would receive under may Only be considered. ambi- factors analysis. Court’s justifies inquiry result be- guity absurd yond the statute. 508.283(c), summary, “non- 508.283, complex, language of while aggravated” days offenders receive two point, inqui- ambiguous on this and every day time credit of street But, ambiguity in case an ry should end. past mid-point supervi- of the language might perceived, in the have in this period. sion The time is credited testimony com- in House reviewed 1) required fashion because the offender opinion. hearing cited the Court’s mittee 2) served, the time serve testimony supports my interpretation That time credit for an gets offender no street statute, rather than the Court’s. time not amount Gallego introduced Representative Pete is the served. This the bill—House Bill 15858—as “technical” have to do much your math. So sen- requiring illustration a diagram: years. So, ten theory, you tence is you start go 1990 and 1585 is a little more technical. And let you’ve prison system done inwell my me—this kind of combination of essentially behaved, you’ve and so
background got when I prose- here as a you’re you’ve released 1994. So my subsequent cutor and then experi- *14 served four years. you that Remember ence on Appropriations. you Each of ten-year have a you go sentence. So have, essentially, should a little diagram along in years, you’re for five and that looks little like this bit about what year you’re revoked. Well still left of may— bill seeks to do. And when it your four, sentence. You’ve served It’s a lot explain easier for me to using you’re five, on parole released for and diagram.9 left, year you one did something presented He then hypothetical, base So, law, wrong. your under the current involving in someone sentenced 1990 for discharge years, date moves five and is years, ten released in and revoked your calculated from the date of release. explained person how that So, you '94, you when were released be treated under the law in effect at essentially So, still years had six left. time: you '99, you were revoked still have now, Right law, you under the current discharge your up date moves do— take a penal you offense and that say 2005.10 was sentenced to ten years. And say, Although let’s I’m not I do good because real not have the from charts math, I at hearing, had to do it from that I starting can reconstruct оne from essentially 1990 to testimony: so would not date
original end sentenced released revoked end date after revocation 1999 2000 discharge
credited date moved years five six after revocation Representative Gallego then remarked existing fenders same as the law but his proposal that of- would treat violent treat nonviolent differently.11 offenders notes, exact, 8. As the although hearing except Court H.B. 1585 was tations from the are vetoed, the exact inwas H.B. 1649. repetitive phrases omission of and of comprehensive H.B. 1649 was a parole more "uh,” "um,” crutch words such as bill. "okay.” Comm, Corrections, 9. H.B. House 1:18:05). (beginning Id. at (Mar. 2001) (audio Leg.,* 77th R.S. at http:l/www.house.state.tx.us./committees/au- 1:20:14). (beginning Id. at 1:17:25). beginning quo- at All dio77/200.htm been re- your parole has because pro- back explained He effect then years left. got still four voked. You’ve If the amount of remain- posеd law. remaining por- That four is—the greater ing the warrant issued when time, greater your there tion of offender’s street than the hap- And what period. so your time credit: would be up is moved your discharge pens you What this bill does take same it is from years because calculated two sen- you’re ten still year offense of the warrant.12 the issuance date of '90, '94. you’re still released in tenced diagram conforms to tes- following there a warrant two The say Let’s timony: come you later issued for that’s new original *15 end end date date warrant released sentenced 2002 discharge not credited moved date years
two remaining six after revocation In- testimony in revoked in 1999. immediately following the leased and ex- to quoted portion, Representative Gallego adding five the offender’s stead an plains date, how to calculate time credit for as old would discharge the sсheme remaining whose time is than offender done, add House Bill 1585would have less his street time: year discharge resulting the one date —
If the remaining portion the is less than in discharge in 2001. So the offender period, essentially year then one the two left to serve: would have coming is added. And that’s the next plus an year one he hasn’t I I am kind of page. And can see that year. to that one equal amount of time all, losing you perhaps and so the best Gallego recognized that Representative explain this be Mr. Rod- would complicated proposed scheme the this, I riguez, essentially with who lives (which the case if the offend- be regular think on a basis.13 remaining simply were er with less interprets passage this as Court time) all and deferred to given of his street year meaning that the offender has one Chairman of the Rodriguez, Victor Representative Gallego left to serve. But Paroles, for more Board Pardons and added to the saying year that one explanation: detailed discharge date. The offender offender’s explain, actually, Rodriguez I’ll let Mr. whom he refers —the one with less more, friendly guess, in much user in than the one street time—is terms, you kind tell about some and This is of- original hypothetical. request my did at they in of the charts sentenced fender who was 1:22:01). Id. 1:21:08). (beginning at Id. (beginning at explain of help kind this'.14 situation would calculated under House Bill 1585: Rodriguez Chairman went back to the original hypothetical explained how page, On the next under states in at law effect the time would five add that, if the amount of time at years to hypothetical dis- offender’s time of warrant is less charge date: out, you’ve amount of time been then law, Under current all offenses are sub- revocation, upon remaining portion ject you process: this If ten get a recomputed shall be without credit for sentence, year supposing you follow amount amount you chart begin this it in your sentence on date theoretically your discharge in your And warrant. this is illus- law, year 2000. current Under tration under page second here. scenario, you this were on a released For example, page that second illus- between—in this case 1994—and tration, is an individual that’s revoked, you then were then cleared all the had hurdles. He one law, accordance remaining por- year left date warrant. His your tion of recalculated discharge new date would be as *16 without you credit for the time that were opposed to 2005.16 So, supervision. out on cur- applying law, scenario, rent under this when the words, In other the calculation works ex- discharge recomputed, date is new actly as I plain have stated it should in the discharge date move forward meaning analysis opinion, of this as illus- years.15 about five A trated above Chart 2. chart depicting explained Rodriguez’s Chairman Rodriguez testimony later how Chairman would be discharge hypothetical as follows:
original new warrant end date released end date sentenced 1999 2000 2001 moved discharge one year years two credited after
revocation warrant I one only days’ will mention other extratextual based on a a few difference of rejecting reason for interpreta- example, the Court’s time. For an offender consequences tion: the of a con- ten particular released with left on his sentence struction. interpreta- get Under Court’s could credit for over five he tion, release, day offenders with the same sentence serves five and one similarly widely could have different time situated who credits while offender 1:22:49). (beginning (beginning l:28:50)(emphasis Id. at 16.Id. at add- ed). 1:25:11). (beginning Id. at offend- days less than other serves two credit at all. Under would receive no
er scheme, however, the statutory
the actual graduated, so that the two
time credit is days’
days’ results two difference An
time credit. offender rewarded longer more time credit
progressively successfully serves mid-point
past
on release. consequences
These are another rea- interpret ambiguous statute to
son scheme.
impose graduated really ambiguity
But is no here. there clear, language of statute is and so legislative history. respectfully
dissent. *17 parte Laroyce
Ex Lathair
SMITH, Applicant.
No. 74228. Appeals
Court Criminal Texas.
April