Case Name: Ernest ESPINOSA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1982-06-09
Citations: 653 S.W.2d 446
Docket Number: No. 04-81-00124-CR
Parties: Ernest ESPINOSA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
Judges: Before CADENA, C.J., and BUTTS and CLARK/ JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 653
Pages: 446–455

Head Matter:
Ernest ESPINOSA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
No. 04-81-00124-CR.
Court of Appeals of Texas, San Antonio.
June 9, 1982.
Rehearing Denied June 29, 1983.
David K. Chapman, San Antonio, for appellant.
Bill White, Dist. Atty., Alan E. Battaglia, Asst. Dist. Atty., San Antonio, for appellee.
Before CADENA, C.J., and BUTTS and CLARK/ JJ.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a conviction for aggravated robbery. The jury found appellant guilty, and based on allegation and proof of a prior felony conviction, assessed his punishment at 25 years' confinement in the Texas Department of Corrections.
Appellant raises two grounds of error. He first alleges that the trial court erred in refusing to grant his petition for mandamus requesting that the State furnish him with copies of its records regarding the prior criminal jury service of the prospective jurors in his case. Second, he alleges that the trial court erred in giving him insufficient credit for his time spent in jail prior to trial. Tex.Code Crim.Pro.Ann. art. 42.03, § 2 (Vernon 1979).
Both parties in their briefs agree that appellant was given insufficient credit for his time spent in jail prior to trial. The State does not contest appellant's assertion that he remained in jail continuously from and after his being arrested in the instant case on February 9, 1979. The sentence, however, credits him only for the period from and after April 18, 1979, the date of indictment.
The requirements of art. 42.03, § 2, supra, are mandatory. Guerra v. State, 518 S.W.2d 815, 817 (Tex.Cr.App.1975); Jones v. State, 545 S.W.2d 771, 779 (Tex.Cr.App.1977 —Opinion on State's Motion for Rehearing). Therefore, we order the sentence in this cause reformed to indicate that the sentence shall begin and operate from February 9, 1979.
Regarding appellant's first ground, the State contends that juror information cards would not be discoverable under prior holdings, and that contrary to appellant's assertion, the enactment of the Texas Open Records Act, Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 6252-17a (Vernon Supp.1982), did not supersede these holdings. We agree. Such information having been deemed confidential by judicial decision, Martin v. State, 577 S.W.2d 490,491 (Tex.Cr.App.1979), Linebarger v. State, 469 S.W.2d 165 (Tex.Cr.App.1971), we hold that such information is excepted from disclosure under art. 6252-17a, § 3(a)(1), supra. Appellant's first ground of error is overruled.
The judgment, as reformed, is affirmed. A copy of this opinion shall be forwarded to the Texas Department of Corrections, along with our mandate.
Before the court en banc.