Phillips, Sherron Dondriel
This text of Phillips, Sherron Dondriel (Phillips, Sherron Dondriel) 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.
Opinion
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NO. WR-82,437-01
EX PARTE SHERRON DONDRIEL PHILLIPS, Applicant
ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS CAUSE NUMBER CR-566-12-D(1) IN THE 206 TH DISTRICT COURT HIDALGO 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 writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte
Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant claims that he is entitled to a
statement from the Board of Pardons and Paroles (the Board) detailing the reasons his parole was
denied. Applicant asks us to compel the Board to provide him with a more specifically detailed
statement of reasons for its decision to deny him parole. Applicant pleaded guilty to possession of
marijuana in Hidalgo County and was sentenced to 42 months’ imprisonment. On August 1, 2014,
the Board sent Applicant notice pursuant to Government Code Section 508.1411 that his first parole Phillips - 2
review was denied. Filing pro se, applicant brought a habeas action under Article 11.07 asking this
Court to compel the Board to provide a detailed and specific statement of its reasons for denying
applicant’s release to parole.
The habeas court entered proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law recommending
that the application be denied. This Court filed and set the case to determine the following questions:
(1) whether habeas corpus is an adequate remedy when an applicant contends that the Board’s
statement of reasons for denying parole violates the Due Process Clause of the United States
Constitution in a case in which there is no presumption that parole will be granted; (2) assuming for
the sake of argument that an applicant does have an adequate remedy on habeas, whether
Government Code § 508.1411 implicates due process and the written notice provided by the Board
satisfies due process; and (3) whether an application for a writ of mandamus is the proper remedy
for such claims. Ex parte Phillips, No. WR-82,437-01, 2014 WL 7189084 (Tex. Crim. App. Dec.
17, 2014) (not designated for publication).
The briefs were filed in March of 2015. The record reflects that, at that time, applicant’s next
parole hearing date was set for July 15, 2015. Because applicant’s case may have become moot
based on a favorable result from the July hearing, we remand the case to the habeas court so that the
record may be developed to include the results of that hearing.
This application will be held in abeyance. Phillips’s July 15 hearing results shall be
forwarded to this Court within 15 days of the date of this order. Any extensions of time shall be
obtained from this Court.
Filed: November 4, 2015
Do not publish Phillips - 3
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Phillips, Sherron Dondriel, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/phillips-sherron-dondriel-texcrimapp-2015.