## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS

N O . A P - 75, 985

EX PA R TE I G N A C I O Z EN D EJA S , A ppl i c ant

ON AP P LI CAT I ON F OR A W RI T OF HABE AS CORP US CAUS E N O. 6 5 5 8 5 3 - A I N T HE 2 2 8 J UDI CI AL DI S TR I CT COURT TH FROM HA RRI S CO UNTY

P e r c u r i a m. O P I N I O N Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal P ro ce d u re , the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for writ of habea s corpus. Ex pa rte Y oung , 418 S. W. 2 d 8 2 4 , 8 2 6 ( T e x. Cr im

. A p p . 1 9 6 7 )

. A p p li c an t w a s c o n v ic te d o f b u r g la r y of a building and sente nced to teny ear s’ imprisonment. Applicant contends that he is being improperly denied stre et time cre dit for a pe riod of mandatory

supervision from Oc tober, 2002, until April , 2 005. As a pre liminary matter, the tria l

co u rt finds that Applicant has not prope rly exhausted his administ rative r emedies a s require d by Texas Governme nt C o d e § 5 0 1.0081, beca use he submitted a c laim to the time credit re solutionsy stem of the Te x as De partment of Criminal Justi ce and rec eived a response from that office afte r

he filed this writ in the distr i ct co urt. Howe ver, attached to Applica nt’s writ is evidence that he previously

submitt ed h i s cl ai m to the time cre dit resolution sy stem, and re ceive d a re sponse from that office prior to filing this writ in the dist rict cour t. I n the alternative, the trial court rec ommends denying relief on the merits of Applica nt’s claim. The Te x as De partment of Criminal Just i ce –Classification and Rec ords and Revie w and Release Processing Divisions have provided a ffidavits in conne ction with Applicant’s writ. Base d

on those aff

idavits, the trial court finds that Applica nt is ineligible to ea

rn stree t time credit under Te xas G ov e rnme nt Co de § 50 8. 28 3. Th e tr ia l c ourt fi nd s th a t a t th e tim e of

the re vo c a tio n o f h is mandatory

supervis i o n , Ap plicant was a person “ descr ibed by

Texas Governme nt Code §508.149(a) ,” bec ause of

a convic tion for indece ncy with a child. Pursuant to this C ourt’s dec ision in Ex parte Keller , 173 S.W .3d 492, 496 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005), only

if the indec ency

conviction wer e the holding offense, or if the hol ding offense had bee n committed after

the indece ncy conviction, would Applicant be a person “ descr ibed by

§508.149(a) .” Acc ording t o TDCJ ’s re cords, Applica nt committed this burg lary offe nse on January

30, 1993. He plea ded g uilty

and re ceive d eig ht y ear s’ def err ed adjudication community supervision on Fe bruar y 2, 1993. On J uly 24, 1995, Applicant committed inde cenc y with a child. On Dec ember 12, 1997, Applicant’s guilt was adjudicate d for the bur g lary offe nse, an d he wa s sentence d to ten y ear s ’ im p r is o n me n t. O n th e s a me d a te , A p p li c an t w a s c o n v ic te d o f in d e c e n c y w it h a c h il d , and sentenc ed to five y ear s’ imprisonment in that cause. Applicant discha

rg ed the f ive-y ear indece ncy

with a child sentenc e on Oc tober 30, 2002. On the same date, he wa s relea sed to mandatory supervision in this cause. This off ense is Applica

nt’s “holding ”convic tion. This offense w as committed befor e, not after, Applicant’s indece ncy with achild conviction. Under Ex parte Keller , the indece ncy conviction is not a previous c onviction for purposes of de termining either A pplicant’s mandatory

supervision elig ibilit y , or for purpose s of deter mining his elig ibilit y

for stre et time cre dit. At the time of his October 30, 2002, rele ase on ma ndatory supervision, Applicant ha d a “midpoint” date of

Fe bruar y 17, 2005. A pre -re vocation wa rra nt was issued on April 15, 2005, and executed on Apr il 22, 2005. Applicant’s mandator y supervision was eventually revoke d on May

26, 2005. Be cause the re maining por tion of Applicant’s s en t ence was le ss than the time he spent on mandator y

supervision prior to his arr est, he should have rec eived c redit for that time. Ex

pa rte Spann , 132 S.W .3d 390, 396 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). Applicant is e n ti tl e d

to r e li e f

. T D CJ s h a ll tr e a t A

p p li c an t a s aninmate w h o qu a li f ie s f or str e e t- tim e c re dit , a

nd sh a ll cr e dit

him wi th h is o ut- of

-c us tod y tim e duri nghis Oc tob e r, 20 02 , to Ap ri l, 2 00 5, re le a se . I f Ap pli c ant is en tit le d to stre e t time c re dit fo r any su bs e qu e nt p e ri od

of re le a se on mandatory

supervision or par ole, TDCJ shall cre dit him wit h such time. Copies of this opi n i o ns h al l b e s en tt o t h e T ex as De p ar t m en to f C ri m i n al J u s t i ce

– C o rrectional I nstitut ions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Deliver ed: September

10, 2008 Do no t pu bli sh