## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-74,954-02

EX P ARTE DARREN LATODD HOUSTON, App licant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 2016R-152-A IN THE 155T H DISTRICT COURT

F ROM F AYETTE COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R Applicant pleade d g uilty to posse ssion of a controlled substance and was sentenc ed to four y ear s’ imprisonment. He did not appea l his conviction. Applicant filed this a pplication for a

writ of habeas cor

pus in the county

of convic tion, and the district cler k forwa rded it to this Court. See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07. Applicant contends th at h e is being denied due proce ss in the mandatory supervision

revoc ation proce ss, and that he is being unlawfully confine d past his sen t ence discharg e date. Applicant alleg es that whi le out on mandatory supervision he was arr ested for a new char g e, and made bond on that char g e. A parole revoc ation war rant was issued and executed, and Applicant was advised of his rig hts in the revoc ation proce ss. Applicant reque sted a preliminary hear ing, but befor e2

h e was g rante d a preliminary hear ing, he was transfe rre d to Colorado County to fac e a new misdemeanor char g e. Applicant allege s that he was rele ase d fr om Colorado C ounty and tol d that he had discharg ed his sentenc e in this case . Howeve r, Applicant alleg es that he was arr ested ag ain

on a revoc ation war

rant, which had been re- issued. Applicant alleg es that he ag ain invoked his rig ht to a preliminary hear ing, but has y et to be aff orded a preliminary hear ing. He alleg es that he should have discharg ed his sentenc e in this case , and that he is being unlawfully confine d. He also alleg es that he is being denied due proce ss by the fa ilure to timely

aff ord him a pre liminary

hear ing. Applicant has alleg ed fac ts that, if true, might entitle him to relief

. Morrissey v. Brewer , 408 U.S 471, 488, 92 S. Ct. 2593, 33 L

. Ed. 2d 484 (1972); T E X . G O V ’ T C O D E S E C . 5 0 8

. 2 8 11; T E X . G O V ’ T C O D E § 508.283(b) and (c) ; Ex parte Spann, 132 S.W .3d 390 (Tex. Crim. Ap p . 2004). Acc ording ly , the rec ord should be develope d. The trial court is the appropr iate forum for finding s of fac t. T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07, § 3(d). The trial court shall order the Boa rd of Pardons and Paroles’s Offic e of the Gene ral Counsel and the Texas Depa rtment of Criminal J ustice' s Offic e of the Gene ral Counsel to obtain response s from people with knowledg e of re l ev an t fac ts. I n developing the rec ord, the trial court may use any means set out in Article 11.07, § 3(d). I f the trial court elec ts to hold a hear ing, it shall deter mine wheth er Ap p l i ca n t is indige nt. I f Applicant is indige nt and wants to be repr esente d by counsel, the trial court shall appoint counsel to repr esent him at the hear ing. See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 26.04. I f counsel is appointed or reta ined, the trial court shall immediately

notify this Court of counsel’s name

. The response from the Boa rd of Pardons and Paroles shall state whether Applicant has been

arr ested pursuant to a revoc ation war rant, and if so, when that war rant was issued and executed. The response shall state whether Applicant h as been advised of his rig hts in the revoc ation proce ss,3

wh et h er he reque sted or has rec eived a preliminary hear ing, and whether he has rec eived a fi n al

revoc ation hear ing. The trial court shall make finding s of fac t as to whether Applicant was arr ested for a new of fense , and if so, whe ther he has bee n formally char g ed with a ne w offe nse. The response from the Texas Depa rtment of Criminal J ustice shall state whether Applicant has discharg ed his sentenc e in this case . I f not, the response shall state whether Applicant is serving

a sent ence for, or has been previously convicted of, an offe nse descr ibed by § 508.149(a) of the Texas Governme nt Code. I f not, the re sponse shall state the f ollowing: (1) Applica

nt’s sentenc e-be g in date, (2) how muc h time was re maining on A pplicant’s sente nce when wa s relea sed, (3) how much time Applicant spent on mandatory supervision befor e any revoc ation war rants we re issued, (4) the da tes any revoc ation war

rants we re issued a

nd executed, and (5) whe ther Applica

nt rec eived c redit while re lease d on mandatory supervision. The trial court shall make finding s of fac t as to whether Applicant’s sentenc e in this case has discharg ed. T h e t ri al co u rt shall also make finding s of fac t and conclusions of law as to whether Applicant is being aff

orded due proce ss in the mandatory supervision revoc ation proce ss. The trial court may make any o t h er fi n d i n g s and conclusions that it deems appropr iate in response to Applicant’s c laims. The trial court shall make findings of fac t and conclusions of law withi n ninety day s from the date of this order

. The district cler k shall then immediately forwa rd to this Court the trial court’s finding s and conclusions and the rec ord develope d on rema nd, including, among other things, aff idavits, motions, ob

j ections, proposed finding s and conclusions, order s, and transcr ipts from hear ings and depositions. See T E X . R. A P P . P. 73.4(b)( 4). Any extensions of time must be reque sted by the trial cour

t and obtained f

rom this Court.4

Filed: F ebrua

ry 3, 2021 Do not publish