Case Name: EX PARTE Bruce Hamilton LEE, Applicant
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 2006-11-15
Citations: 223 S.W.3d 360
Docket Number: No. WR-28,164-02
Parties: EX PARTE Bruce Hamilton LEE, Applicant.
Judges: JOHNSON, J., filed a concurring statement.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 223
Pages: 360–362

Head Matter:
EX PARTE Bruce Hamilton LEE, Applicant.
No. WR-28,164-02.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Nov. 15, 2006.
Matthew Dekoatz, El Paso, for Appellant.
Jaime Esparza, District Atty., El Paso, Matthew Paul, State’s Atty., Austin, for State.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex.Crim.App.1967). Applicant was convicted of delivery of cocaine and sentenced to eighteen (18) years' imprisonment.
Applicant contends that he is eligible for street time credit but has been improperly denied credit against his sentence for time served on supervised release. The trial court has entered an order finding that Applicant is entitled to credit for this time because, on the date of the warrant or summons initiating the revocation process, the remaining portion of Applicant's sentence was less than the time spent on parole. Ex parte Spann, 132 S.W.3d 390, 393 (Tex.Crim.App.2004). However, the record does not support this finding.
Specifically, the record contains a verified time calculation from the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division (TDCJ-CID), acknowledging that Applicant's conviction does not render him ineligible for street time credit. The calculation further reflects that Applicant began serving his eighteen-year (that is, 6,570-day) sentence on October 29, 1993. He was released to parole on January 13, 1999. The warrant initiating revocation proceedings issued on August 20, 2004. Thus, Applicant served approximately five years, two months, and fifteen days (that is, 1902 days) before he was released to parole. He then served approximately five years, seven months, and seven days (that is, 2046 days) on release prior to the issuance of the warrant. Accordingly, at the time of issuance of the warrant initiating the revocation process, the remaining portion of Applicant's sentence was approximately seven years, two months, and nine days (that is, 2,626 days). The remaining portion of Applicant's sentence was greater than the time he spent on parole. Applicant is not entitled to credit for the time he served on supervised release, Ex parte Spann, 132 S.W.3d at 393; therefore, we deny relief.
JOHNSON, J., filed a concurring statement.