Gibson, James Edward

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedOctober 24, 2018
DocketWR-56,769-03
StatusPublished

This text of Gibson, James Edward (Gibson, James Edward) 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
Gibson, James Edward, (Tex. 2018).

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NO. WR-56,769-03

EX PARTE JAMES EDWARD GIBSON, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS CAUSE NO. 2012CR7134-W2 IN THE 186TH DISTRICT COURT FROM BEXAR COUNTY

Per curiam.

ORDER

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant pleaded guilty to unlawful

possession of a firearm by a felon, and was sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment.

In the instant application, Applicant contends in his first ground for review that the

trial court abused its discretion by ordering this sentence to run concurrently with a prior

sentence. In his second ground for review, Applicant contends that the Board of Pardons and

Paroles is retroactively applying Section 508.149 of the Texas Government Code to deny him 2

eligibility for mandatory supervision, in violation of the prohibition on ex post

facto application of the law. Lastly, Applicant alleges that his plea agreement in this case has

been violated, rendering the plea involuntary because he believed at the time of the plea that

his previous sentence would be the controlling sentence for purposes of mandatory

supervision eligibility and release.

This Court has reviewed Applicant's first ground for relief and has determined that it

is barred from review under Article 11.07, Section 4 of the Texas Code of Criminal

Procedure. Therefore, that ground is dismissed. Applicant's remaining claim concerning the

ex post facto application of the law and breach of the plea agreement are denied.

Filed: October 24, 2018 Do not publish

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

Related

Ex Parte Young
418 S.W.2d 824 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Gibson, James Edward, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gibson-james-edward-texcrimapp-2018.