## 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-47,593-03

EX P ARTE RANDAL F RANK LIN CARAWAY , Appli cant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 19072C IN THE 91S T DIST RICT COURT

F ROM EASTLAND COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R Applicant was convicted o f m u rder and sentenc ed to ninety -nine y ear s’ imprisonment. During the punishment phase, the parties stipulated that Applicant had acte d under the influence of sudden passion arising from adequa te cause , resulting in a

reduc tion of the deg ree of offe nse from first deg ree to second deg ree murder. Be cause Applicant’s punishm ent was enhanc ed usi ng prior convictions, the ninety -nine y ear sentenc e assessed by the jury was within the applicable punishment
rang e for the offe nse. The Eleventh Court of Appea ls a ffirme d Applicant’s conviction. Caraway

v. State , No. 11-96-00189- CR (Tex. App. — Eastland De ce m b er 17, 1998) (not desig nated for publication). Applicant filed this application for a writ of habea s corpus in the county of conviction, and the district c lerk 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. Applicantalso filed an a mended a pplication, which wa s also forwa rded to this Court.
I n both the initial and amende d applications, Applicant contends that he rec eived ineffe ctive assistance of trial counsel and enter ed an involuntary “plea ” reg arding the sudden passion issue. I n his a mended a pplication, Applicant also a lleg es that the trial judge who presided over his c ase did

not have an oath of office on file at the time of Applicant’s trial. Those claims are barr ed by Article 11.07 §4, and ar e dismissed. Applicant also a lleg es that he is being denied due proce ss by the retroactive application of
Texas Gover

nment Code § 508.149(a) to deny him elig ibilit y for rele ase to mandatory supervision. Applicant alleg es that he only beca me awa re of this issue rec ently when he submitt ed claims to the time cre dit resolution sy stem of the Te x as De partment of Criminal Just ice a nd rec eived response s from that office indicating that this convicti o n m ak es him ineligible for mandatory supervision pursuant to Section 508.149(a)

. I n s u p p o r t o f t h i s c l a i m , A p p l i c a n t s u b m i t s d o c u m e n t s f r o m
T D C J a d v i s i n g h i m t h a t h e i s n o t e l i g i b l e f o r m a n d a t o r y s u p e r v i s i o n p u r s u a n t t o S e c t i o n
5 0 8

. 1 4 9 b e c a u s e o f t h e n a t u r e o f h i s o f f e n s e . O n M a r c h 1 7 , 2 0 2 1 , t h i s C o u r t r e m a n d e d t h i s m a t t e r t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o o b t a i n

a f f i d a v i t s a n d f

i n d i n g s a d d r e s s i n g whether Applicant is considere d elig ible for mandatory supervision, and if not, why not. This Court’s rema nd order also reque sted a response and finding s of fac t as to whether Applicant was classified as ineligible for mandatory supervision at the time he filed his previous habea s applications, and as to w hether Applicant could have raised this claim in those previous a

pplications.
On J une 14, 2021, this Co u rt received the supplemental rec ord in response to its rema nd order

. The su p plemental rec ord includes an aff idavit from TDCJ , which states that Applicant iscurr ently classified as elig ible for mandatory supervision, and has a projec ted mandatory supervision

rele ase da te of Oc tober 12, 2035. After rema

nd, the trial court has enter ed g ener al findings o f fa ct an d conclusions of law,

rec ommending that relief be denied. Neither the aff idavit from TDCJ nor the trial court’s finding s of fac t addre ss the issue of whether Applicant was previously classified as ineligible for mandatory supervision as the documents submitt ed by Applicant in support of his claim sug g est, or whether this claim could have been raised in a previous habea s ap p lication. I n the absenc e of the reque sted finding s on this matter, this Court will assume that the claim was not available at the time Applicant filed his previous applications, and there fore is not barr ed by Section 4. Howeve r, the aff idavit from
TDCJ indicates t h at Ap p l icant is proper ly classified as elig ible for mandatory supervision. Applicant’s g round alleg ing imprope r cla ssification is without merit, and is denied.

Filed: Aug ust 25, 2021 Do not publish