Berotte v. Johnson

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedDecember 13, 2000
Docket99-40187
StatusUnpublished

This text of Berotte v. Johnson (Berotte v. Johnson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Berotte v. Johnson, (5th Cir. 2000).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-40187 Conference Calendar

JAMES BEROTTE,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:98-CV-1926 - - - - - - - - - - December 13, 2000

Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

James Berotte, Texas prisoner # 641970, appeals the district

court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging the

forfeiture of previously earned good-time credits upon the

revocation of his parole. He argues that this forfeiture

violates the Ex Post Facto Clause and seeks restoration of the

forfeited good-time credits. A certificate of appealability was

previously granted.

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. No. 99-40187 -2-

The respondent has filed a motion to dismiss the action as

moot due to Berotte’s re-release on parole. This argument is

meritorious. Berotte has not shown an injury-in-fact, and his

habeas claims are moot due to his re-release on parole. Spencer

v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998); see Ex parte Hallmark, 883 S.W.2d

672, 674 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (good-time credits apply only to

an inmate’s eligibility for parole or mandatory supervision and

do not affect the length of the inmate’s sentence). Therefore,

respondent’s motion to dismiss the appeal is GRANTED, and the

appeal is DISMISSED AS MOOT.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Spencer v. Kemna
523 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1998)
Ex Parte Hallmark
883 S.W.2d 672 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Berotte v. Johnson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/berotte-v-johnson-ca5-2000.