Court Opinion

ID: 9659603
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:50:42.811654+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:09.853516
License: Public Domain

CLINTON, Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the opinion of the Court because the district judge clearly had no authority to release applicant from his five year sentence upon his application for writ of habeas corpus in Cause No. 12,447 filed pursuant to Article 11.07, § 2(a), V.A.C. C.P.; that power is specifically reserved for this Court alone. Id.; Ex parte Ybarra, 629 S.W.2d 943 (Tex.Cr.App.1982).
Since the trial court’s attempt to set aside Cause No. 12,447 was absolutely void, it was a violation of double jeopardy for applicant to be subsequently charged, convicted and sentenced to two years in Cause No. 12,647 for the same burglary, and the latter must now be set aside on the present application. Moreover, I agree that we have no alternative but to recognize the original judgment and five year sentence as effective.
However, it occurs to me that applicant has been severely prejudiced by his unauthorized release from a five year sentence, the subsequent imposition of a two year sentence and, now, the reinstatement of the five year sentence, in terms of his discharge and parole eligibility time credits. Compare Ex parte Esquivel, 531 S.W.2d 339 (Tex.Cr.App.1976). But since applicant does not argue that he is entitled to any additional time credits (which he would have earned had the district court not released him erroneously),1 I concur in the judgment of the Court.2

. By this the writer expresses no opinion as to the merit of such a contention had it been made.

. If applicant believes he is entitled to additional time credits, it behooves him to fully develop the facts concerning his incarceration on the record.