Court Opinion

ID: 9749755
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 23:11:13.892967+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:57.547391
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
                          OF TEXAS
                                       NO. WR-15,305-03

                    EX PARTE MARK TWAIN SIMPSON, Applicant

            ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
                      CAUSE NO. W13-56596-K(A)
       IN THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 4 FROM DALLAS COUNTY

       Per curiam.

                                           OPINION

       Applicant was convicted of robbery and sentenced to twenty-five years’ imprisonment. The

Fifth Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Simpson v. State, 05-14-00618-CR (Tex.

App.—Dallas April 20, 2015)(not designated for publication). Applicant filed this application for

a writ of habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and the district clerk forwarded it to this Court.

See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07.

       Applicant contends that counsel was ineffective and that he is being improperly denied street

time credit on this sentence for time spent on appellate bond. If a person is on appellate bond, the

mandate on his appeal issues, but he is not notified that his appeal is affirmed, and he does not
violate his bond, then he may be entitled to time credit for the time he is erroneously allowed to be

out of custody from the time the mandate issues until the time he is taken into custody to serve the

sentence. Ex parte Thiles, 333 S.W.3d 148 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011).

       The trial court finds that Applicant was never informed that his conviction was affirmed on

appeal and that he never violated his appellate bond. It therefore recommends that Applicant receive

time credited on his sentence. We agree.

       Relief is granted on the time credit issue only. Applicant is to receive time credit in this

cause from the time the mandate on his direct appeal issued on May 14, 2016, until June 4, 2019,

when he was taken into custody. His claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are denied.

       Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–Correctional

Institutions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Delivered: August 23, 2023
Do Not Publish