Ex Parte Stokes

15 S.W.3d 532, 2000 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 33, 2000 WL 294828
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedMarch 22, 2000
Docket73740
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 15 S.W.3d 532 (Ex Parte Stokes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ex Parte Stokes, 15 S.W.3d 532, 2000 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 33, 2000 WL 294828 (Tex. 2000).

Opinion

OPINION

The opinion was delivered

PER CURIAM.

This is a post-conviction application for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to Article 11.07, V.A.C.C.P. Applicant was convicted of possession of cocaine and punishment, enhanced by a prior conviction, was assessed at five years imprisonment. No appeal was taken from this conviction.

Applicant contends that he has not been given all the time credit he is due on this conviction. However, this application was filed in the district clerk’s office on January 5, 2000, and does not include any documents reflecting that Applicant has received a written decision from the office of time credit resolution for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Further, Applicant does not allege that it has been more than 180 days since he submitted an allegation of time credit error to that office, and the record reflects Applicant was not within 180 days of his presumptive *533 release date on the date he filed this application.

All persons seeking time credit relief in an application filed pursuant to Art. 11.07, § 3, filed in the district clerk’s office on or after January 1, 2000, must show that a written decision has been obtained or that he is within 180 days of release according to current department records, or must allege that he sought resolution of his credit complaint more than 180 days before the application was filed. V.T.C.A. Gov’t.Code § 501.0081. Applicant has not met any of these statutory predicates for raising a time credit complaint, so this application must be dismissed.

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

Related

Drones v. Davis
S.D. Texas, 2020
Archie v. Davis
S.D. Texas, 2020
Delgadillo, Arturo
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2017
in Re: Brian K. Melton
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2015
Wilson, Jerry AKA Parker, Steve Vic
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2014
Hanson, James Bryan
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2013
Wion v. Quarterman
567 F.3d 146 (Fifth Circuit, 2009)
Walters v. Quarterman
258 F. App'x 697 (Fifth Circuit, 2007)
Ramsey, Michael Eugene
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2007
in Re: Danny Doan
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2006
Wright, Larry Don
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2006
Dunlap, Ex Parte Steven
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2005
Ex Parte Dunlap
166 S.W.3d 268 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2005)
Maurice Lozano v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2004
Ex Parte Millard
48 S.W.3d 190 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
15 S.W.3d 532, 2000 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 33, 2000 WL 294828, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-stokes-texcrimapp-2000.