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

N O . A P - 76, 098

EX PA R TE A R M A N D O C O R TE Z A R C E , 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. 1 2 5 6 - 0 7 - D I N T HE 2 0 6 DI S TR I CT COURT TH FROM HI DALG O CO UNTY

K ELL ER , P .J ., de l i ve r e d t he opi ni on o f t he C our t i n w hi c h M E YE RS , W OMACK , K EASLE R , H E RVEY and H OL C OM B , J J ., jo in e d . P RI CE , J OHNS ON , and C OCHR AN , c onc ur r e d. Applicant challeng es the validity of his c onviction f or failure to r eg ister as a se x offe nder. Th e re so lut ion

of his c la im d e pe nd s u

po n w he the r h e wa s st ill se rv inga se nte nc e fo r a

se x off e ns e on September 1, 1997, w hen a r etroa ctive re g istration la w went into e ffe ct. To answe r that question,

we e x a mi n e n o t o n ly th a t s tatute , b u t a ls o ma n d a to r y - s u p e r v is io n r e v o c a ti o n p r o v is io n s and the

sc he me fo r s ta c kin g se nte nc e s th a t w a s in e ff e c t be fo re Se pte mbe r 1 , 1 987. We h old that, i n deter mining whe ther a

person must reg ister as a sex off ender , revoc ation of mandatory supervision for se ntence s that were stacke d under the old scheme place s the rele asee in the same position he was in when he w as re lease d. Be cause applicant’ s sentence had not y et dischar g ed whe n he wa s relea sed,ARCE – 2

The resulting time to be serve d was less than fourtee n y ear s, howeve r, bec ause a pplicant 1 rec eived 227 da

y s cre dit on the four-y ear sentenc e. The proclamation of revoc ation err oneously listed April 19, 1997, as the date applica nt was 2 arr ested on the pr e-r evocation warra nt. As a result of t his err or, t he Tex as Department of Criminal Justi c e (T DC J) for fe ite d only 28 4 d ay s o f a pp lic ant’ s st

re e t ti me , r a the r t

ha n th e 64 9 d ay s th a t sh ou ld have be en for feited. App licant’s super

vision ended on June 16, 2001. Had TDCJ discovere d the er ror in the 3 proclamation of revoc ation, applicant’ s supervision would have lasted a y ear longe r, endingon J une 16, 2002. it r e ma ine d und isc ha

rg e d w he n h is m and a tor

y su pe rv isi on was revo ked. H e wa s, the re fo re , in cust o dy on the sexual-assault offe nse on the e ffe ctive date of the statute r equiring sex-offende r reg istration. I. BACKG ROUND On April 22, 1987, app l i cant was convicte d of sexual assault and sente nced to ten y ear s imprisonment. W hile servingthat sentenc e, he w as convicted of possessing a dea dly wea pon in a pe na l ins tit

uti on a nd a sse sse d a se nte nc e of fo ur y e ars . Th e fo ur -y e ar se nte nc e wa s st a c ke d u po n h is

ear lier ten-y ear

sentenc e. On J uly

9, 1996, applicant wa s relea sed to mandatory supervision. He 1

was a rre sted on a pre -re vocation wa rra nt on April 19, 1 9 9 8, and his mandatory supervision was revoke d on May 4, 1998. On Fe bruar y 12, 1999, applicant was ag ain rele ased to m an datory 2 supervision, and he succe ssfully serve d his remaining period of r elea se. 3 A p p li c an t w a s s u

b s e qu e n tl y

c h ar g e d w it h an d c o n v ic te d

o f f a il u r e to c o mp ly

w iths e xoffe nder r eg istration requirements. He f iled a habe as application, contending that he wa s not require d to reg ister bec ause his sexual assault sentenc e had disc harg ed bef ore the September 1, 1997, eff ective date of the relevant amendment to the re g istration statute. The Te x as De partment of Criminal J ustice (TD CJ ) filed a n aff idavit expl aining that it was treating the two stacke d sentenc esARCE – 3

Ex parte Arc e , No. WR-29,554-03, slip op. at 2 (Tex. C rim. App. Dec ember 10, 2008)(not 4 desig nated f

or publication)( withdrawn)

. Ex parte Arc e , N o . A P- 7 6 , 0 9 8 , s li p o p . at 1 ( T e x. Cr im

. A p p . F e b r u ar y 4, 2009)(not 5 desig nated f

or publication). Id. at 2. 6 Acts 1991, 72 L eg ., ch. 572, §1. 7 n d as a sing le fourte en-y ear

sentenc e. Counting te n y ear s from April 22, 1987, to April 22, 1997, the State and the tria l court ag ree d with applicant that his sexual-ass au l t s en t en ce ha d expired befor e September 1, 1997, a

nd conseque ntly , they

rec ommended g ranting relief . I n a wr itten o rd er that dis a g re e d wi th the tr ia l c ourt ’s re c omm e nd a tio n, we fo un d th a t a pp lic ant w a s in

the c us tod

y of TD CJ when the amendment became eff ective beca

use applicant was returned to c ustody from mandatory supervision on April 19, 1997, which c aused him to lose nine months of out- of-c ustody (or “ street” ) time a nd moved his discha

rg e date for the sexual a ssault of fense from April 1997 to January 1998. 4 We l a te r d isc ov e re d th a t ou r w ri tt en orde r w a s b a se d u po n a re c or d th a t w a s in c or

re c t. 5 Ap pli c ant’ s arr e st o n th e pr e -r e vo c a tio n w arr ant h a d o c c ur re d o n Apr il 1 9, 19 98 rathe r t ha n Apr il 19, 1997. We filed and set the application for submissi on to determine: (1) whether applicant wa s incar cer ated f

or a r eporta

ble offe nse on September 1, 1997; a

nd (2) whe ther a

pplicant was r equire d to reg ister as a

sex offender

on or about the alleg ed date of this off ense. We invited the pa

rties and TDCJ to brief the issues. Applicant submitted a brief in support of g ranting relief , while both the 6 State and TDCJ have filed brie fs in support of deny ing r elief. II. AN AL YSI S Th e Te xas l e g isl a tur e pa sse d its fi rs t se x off e nd e r r e g istra

tio n s ta tut e in 1 99 1. Th e statut e 7ARCE – 4

Id. (T EX . C IV . S T . Art. 6252-13c .1, §8(a) ). 8 Acts 1997, 75 L eg ., ch. 668, §1 (T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . art. 62.11). 9 t h Id. , §1 1

. TDCJ contends that this eff ective date provision was late r over riden by the 10 transition clause fro m t h e 2005 amendments to make the sex offende r re g istration require ment completely re t ro ac t i v e to September 1, 1970. This positi on acc ords with the Texas Attorney Gene ral’s interpretation of the law

. See Te x. Atty

. Ge n. Op . G A- 04 54 . T he 20 05 tr ans iti on c la us e provided in re levant par

t that “the cha

ng es in law made by

this Act in amending Chapter 62, Code o f C r i m i n a l P r o c e d

u r e , a p p l y to a person subject to Chapter 62 , Code of C riminal Procedur e, for an of fe ns e or c on du c t c omm itt e d o r e ng a g e d in be fo re , o n, or

a ft e r t he e ff e c tiv e date of

thi s A c t.” Ac ts 20 05 , 7 9 L e g ., c h. 10 08 , §4 .0 1( a )( e mph a sis a dd e d)

. Ar g ua bly , the tr ans iti on

langua g e re fe rr ingto th a per son being subject to Chapter 62 w ould prec lude application to som eone w ho was e x empted from Chapter

62 by an earlier version of the s tatute. We need not, and do not, decide this question, howeve r. Acts 1997, 75 L eg ., ch. 668, §1 (T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . art. 62.01(5) (A))

. 11 th Id. (Art. 62.01( 5), pa ssi m ). 12 applied only “to a repor

table conviction or adjudication occ urringon or af ter Septembe r 1, 1991.” 8 The statute was amended, effe ctive S eptember 1, 1997, to permit retroa ctive application to som eone wi th “ a re po rt a ble c on vic tio n o r a dju dic a tio n o c c ur ri ngon or a ft e r S e pte mbe r 1 , 1 97 0. ” Th is 9 retroa ctive application was restric ted, howeve r, to persons who wer e “confined in a penal institution

. . . or . . . under the supervision and control of

. . . the pardons and parole s divisi o n o f t h e T ex as De pa rtme nt o f C ri min a l Just ic e ” purs ua nt to the re po rt a

ble c on vic tio n on or

a ft e r t he e ff e c tiv e date of the 19 97 a me ndme nt. 10 Applicant’s se x ual assault convic tion was a re portable c onviction, bu t h i s conviction for 11 po sse ssi on of a de a dly we a po n in a pe na l in sti tut ion

wa s n ot. Counti ngte n y e ars fr om w he n h is

12

se xua l a ssa

ult se nte nc e be g an, a

pp lic ant c on te nd s th a t hi s se xua l a s s a u l t se nte nc e dis c ha

rg e d in Ap ri l 1997, so that he was not confine d or subj ect to supervision on that offe nse in September 1997, w henARCE – 5

21 S.W .3d 264 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). 13 Ex pa rte Fo rwa rd , 258 S.W .3d 151, 152 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008)(interna l quotation 14 marks and f

ootnote ref

ere nce omitted). Id. at 153-54. 15 t h e a m en d edv er s i o no f t h e s t at u t e w en ti n t o ef fe ct

. C i t i n g Ex parte Kuester , he conte nds that 13 stacking a new

sentenc e onto a prior sentenc e shoul d not aff ect how long it takes the pr ior sentenc e to run. B ut Kuester ’s rules apply only to se ntence s that are imposed on or af ter Septembe r 1, 1987. “B efor e September

1, 1987, consec utive sentenc es we re a dded tog ether and treated as one sente nce for the pur

pose of de termining elig ibilit y for relea se on par ole and mandatory supervision and for the purpose of

deter mining an inmate’s final discharg e date.” This remains the r ule so long as one 14 of the sente nces in the se ries beg an bef ore Septe mber 1, 1987. 15 We need not dec ide w h et h er t h i s “trea t as a sing le sentenc e” r

ule could, for

reg istration purposes, be used to de lay the expiration of the first sentenc e if the inmate has bee n incarce rated for an amount of time e qual to that first sentenc e. Applica nt was not incar cer ated f

or ten y ear s befor e Se pte mbe r 1 , 1 99 7. He wa s re le a se d on man dator y su pe rv isi on a

bo ut nin e mon ths sh or

t of te n y e a rs . Applicant’s position is premised on t he idea that he dis char g ed his sexual assault sentence while on rele ase in April 1997 and then started e arningtime on his second sentenc e. B ut that is not how the law wo rk s wh e n on e of

the sta c ke d s e nte nc e s b e g an b e fo re Se pte mbe r 1 , 1 98 7. Ap pli c ant w a s a ble to obtain mandatory

supervision rele ase in 1996 pre cisely beca use the lawtreated his stacked sentenc es as a

single sentenc e. Ha d the sentenc es been treated individually , he would not have even sta rt e d e arn ingc re dit

tow ard mand a tor

y su pe rv isi on un til he ha d se rv e d ou t the e nti re ty of his fi rs tARCE – 6

Fo rwa rd , 258 S.W .3d at 152-53 (f or post-1987 off

ens e s , ma n d a to r y s u p e r v is ion c alculate d 16 only for the f inal sentenc e in the ser ies). See id. at 152. 17 T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE §508.283(c) (West 1998). 18 Be cause of TDCJ’s error in c alculatingcre dit from an ar rest date of April 19, 1997, 19 a pp lic ant’ s r e ma ini ngse nte nc e wa s c a lc ulate d a s if he ha d b e e n in c arc e ra

te d f or mor e tha n te n y e a rs . But just as we now re fuse to allow a pplicant to be har

med by this erro r (b y att ributing a n ear lier incar cer ation date than was actually the case), we also ref use t o allow applicant to benef it from it (by treating a pplicant as having be en inca rce rate d for a

longe r per iod than was a ctually the ca se). ten-y ear sentenc e within the prison walls. Consist ent with tr eating the two sentenc es a s o ne 16 combined sente nce f

or the purpose of obtaining ear ly rele ase, w e should also treat those sentence s as combined f

or the purpose of dischar g e while on r elea se. 17 This means that the two sentenc es are treated as one unit for the purpose of de termining how

muc h “ str e e t ti me ” a

re le a se e fo rf

e its up on re vo c a tio n. Un de r t

he law i n e ff

e c t a t th e tim e applicant’ s mandatory supervision was revoked, a rele asee forf

eited all of the time spent on relea se. 18 F or fe iti ng a ll the tim e sp e nt on re le a se fo r the c omb ine d se nte nc e wo uld pla c e a pp lic ant i n th e same position, i n May

1998, when his ma

ndatory supervision was revoke d, that he was in whe n he wa s rele ased in July

1996: about nine months short of ten y ear s, which mea n s h e could not have discharg ed his ten-y ear

sexual assault sentence befor e September 1, 1997. 19 We deny relief

. Deliver ed: J une 24, 2009 Publis h