Henry, Moses v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Henry, Moses v. State

DecidedJune 7, 2000

Docket05-96-01983-CR

StatusPublished

This text of Henry, Moses v. State (Henry, Moses v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Henry, Moses v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

;,• j . |l-

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

NO. 73,825

EX PARTE MOSES HENRY, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FROM DALLAS COUNTY

The opinion was deliveredper curiam.

OPINION

This is a post-conviction application for writ ofhabeas corpus filed pursuant to Article 11.07, V.A.C.C.P. Applicant was convicted ofaggravated assault, and the court assessed punishment atten years imprisonment. This conviction was affirmed. Henry v. State. No. 05-96-01983-CR (Tex. App.—Dallas, delivered August 20, 1998, no pet.).

Applicant contends that he has not received credit for all ofthe time he spent in the Dallas County jail on this cause. The trial court has entered findings of fact, after a hearing, in which it determined that Applicant was confined prior to trial from February 10, 1995 to October 16, 1995, and also that he was continuously confined in the Dallas County jail from the day he was sentenced, December 12, 1996, until he was admitted to prison on January 4, 1999. The trial court also determined that Applicant has not received credit for the latter period and recommended that Applicant receive additional credit.

We agree, and reliefis granted. A defendant is entitled to credit on his sentence

for time confined in jail pending disposition ofhis appeal, unless he is released on bail. Article 42.03 §3V.A.C.C.P. Applicant was not released from jail after he was sentenced on December 12, 1996 until he was transferred to the Institutional Division. The

officials at the Texas Department ofCriminal Justice —Institutional Division are hereby ordered to amend Applicant's records to reflect credit from the date Applicant was sentenced, as well as the pretrial credit ordered in the judgment in Cause No. F95-43891- IM in the 194th Judicial District Court ofDallas County. Copies of this opinion shall be sentto the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles as

well as the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional and Parole Divisions.

DELIVERED JUNE 7, 2000

DO NOT PUBLISH

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

;,• j . |l-

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

NO. 73,825

EX PARTE MOSES HENRY, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FROM DALLAS COUNTY

The opinion was deliveredper curiam.

OPINION

This is a post-conviction application for writ ofhabeas corpus filed pursuant to Article 11.07, V.A.C.C.P. Applicant was convicted ofaggravated assault, and the court assessed punishment atten years imprisonment. This conviction was affirmed. Henry v. State. No. 05-96-01983-CR (Tex. App.—Dallas, delivered August 20, 1998, no pet.).

Applicant contends that he has not received credit for all ofthe time he spent in the Dallas County jail on this cause. The trial court has entered findings of fact, after a hearing, in which it determined that Applicant was confined prior to trial from February 10, 1995 to October 16, 1995, and also that he was continuously confined in the Dallas County jail from the day he was sentenced, December 12, 1996, until he was admitted to prison on January 4, 1999. The trial court also determined that Applicant has not received credit for the latter period and recommended that Applicant receive additional credit.

We agree, and reliefis granted. A defendant is entitled to credit on his sentence

for time confined in jail pending disposition ofhis appeal, unless he is released on bail. Article 42.03 §3V.A.C.C.P. Applicant was not released from jail after he was sentenced on December 12, 1996 until he was transferred to the Institutional Division. The

officials at the Texas Department ofCriminal Justice —Institutional Division are hereby ordered to amend Applicant's records to reflect credit from the date Applicant was sentenced, as well as the pretrial credit ordered in the judgment in Cause No. F95-43891- IM in the 194th Judicial District Court ofDallas County. Copies of this opinion shall be sentto the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles as

well as the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional and Parole Divisions.

DELIVERED JUNE 7, 2000

DO NOT PUBLISH

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Henry, Moses v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henry-moses-v-state-texapp-2000.