Ex Parte Mabry

¶1concurring.

¶2I agree with the Court’s result but I disagree with its analysis. I therefore concur only in the result.

¶3I.

¶4In 1991, Andrew Michael Mabry was convicted of burglary of a habitation for *61actions committed in 1990. He was paroled and revoked twice. Upon revocation, prison officials declined to give him credit for the time he spent on parole. Prison officials also concluded that Ma-bry’s offense was not eligible for mandatory supervision. Mabry filed this writ application arguing that he is entitled to credit for his street time and that his offense should be designated as eligible for mandatory supervision. I agree with the Court’s decision to grant relief.

¶5II.

¶6At the time that Mabry committed his burglary offense, the applicable burglary statute stated:

¶7§ 30.02 Burglary

(a) A person commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner, he:

(1) enters a habitation, or a building (or any portion of a building) not then open to the public, with intent to commit a felony or theft; or

(2) remains concealed, with intent to commit a felony or theft, in a building or habitation; or

(3) enters a building or habitation and commits or attempts to commit a felony or theft.

[[Image here]]

(c) Except as provided in Subsection (d) of this section, an offense under this section is a felony of the second degree.

(d) An offense under this section is a felony of the first degree if:

(1)the premises are a habitation; or

(2) any party to the offense is armed with explosives or a deadly weapon; or

(3) any party to the offense injures or attempts to injure anyone in effecting entry or while in the building or in immediate flight from the building.1

¶8Mabry’s indictment alleged two possible methods of committing the burglary. The first paragraph charged that he “did then and there intentionally, without the effective consent of Kenneth Williams, the owner thereof, enter a habitation with intent to commit theft.” The second paragraph alleged that he “did then and there knowingly and intentionally, without the effective consent of Kenneth Williams, the owner thereof, enter a habitation and did attempt to commit and committed theft.” So Ma-bry’s indictment alleged offenses under subsections (a)(1) and (a)(3) of former § 30.02. There is no allegation of weapons or injury pursuant to subsections (d)(2) or (d)(3).

¶9Mabry’s judgment reflects his conviction for “burg, of hab.” in the “1st” degree. This is in line with the requirements of the statute, which provided that burglary was a first degree felony if the premises were a habitation.2

¶10At the time that Mabry committed this burglary, the statute governing an inmate’s eligibility for release to mandatory supervision was former Art. 42.18, § 8(c).3 At that time, that statute provided that a prisoner could not be released to mandatory supervision if he were serving a sentence for, among other things, “a first degree felony under Section 30.02 Penal Code (Burglary), if the offense is punished *62under Subsection (d)(2) or (d)(3) of that section.”4

¶11While Mabry is serving a sentence for a first degree felony under § 30.02, he is not being punished under either subsection (d)(2) or (d)(3). Therefore, under the law in effect at the time that Mabry committed this offense, he is eligible for mandatory supervision.

¶12But prison officials have concluded otherwise, presumably based upon the current law governing an inmate’s eligibility for release to mandatory supervision. That statute reads in pertinent part as follows:

¶13§ 508.149 Inmates Ineligible for Mandatory Supervision

(a) An inmate may not be released to mandatory supervision if the inmate is serving a sentence for or has been previously convicted of:

[[Image here]]

(13) a first degree felony under Section 30.02, Penal Code.5

¶14The language regarding subsections (d)(2) and (d)(3) of § 30.02 is no longer present. It was deleted from Art. 42.18 in 1995, before that statute was repealed and replaced with § 508.149.6 So since Mabry is serving a sentence for a first-degree felony under § 30.02, and § 508.149 contains no requirement that his conviction be pursuant to subsections (d)(2) or (d)(3), Mabry would be ineligible for mandatory supervision if the current statute were applied.

¶15Of course, there is no reason that the current statute should apply. We have repeatedly held that, in determining an inmate’s eligibility for mandatory supervision or parole, the governing statute is the one that was in effect when the offense was committed. Over twenty years ago, we denied relief to an applicant, stating that he “should be serving his sentence under the guidelines of the Adult Probation and Parole law in effect at the time of the offense.”7 A few years later, we granted relief to an applicant whose plea bargain was impossible to perform. We noted that, while the prosecutor and the trial judge had given incorrect information, the “applicant’s trial attorney did not give applicant erroneous advice on parole eligibility since it was his opinion, which was correct, that the law in effect at the time of commission of the offense was applicable.”8 And most recently in Ex parte Hall,9we applied the statute in effect at the time the applicant committed his offense rather than the one in effect at the time he committed the offense resulting in his prior conviction. Indeed, most of the' time we just apply the law that was in effect at the time that the offense was committed without discussion.10

¶16*63And even without this established line of precedent, the enabling legislation itself specifically provides that the statutory change that deleted the reference to subsections (d)(2) and (d)(3) of § 30.02 “applies only to a prisoner serving a sentence for an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act.”11

¶17III.

¶18So in light of our caselaw and the relevant legislation, the statute that should apply is the one in effect when Mabry’s burglary was committed. Nevertheless, there is a distinctive issue in this case that must be addressed. Section 508.149 states that an inmate may not be released to mandatory supervision “if the inmate is serving a sentence for or has been previously convicted of’ any of the enumerated offenses, including first-degree burglary under § 30.02.12

¶19Mabry concedes that, “at a glance,” this language might indicate that a person like him, who was previously convicted of first-degree burglary, is ineligible for mandatory supervision. Nevertheless, Mabry argues that this cannot be true in light of the legislation which specifically makes the relevant statutory amendment applicable only to offenses committed after its effective date. I agree with Mabry, both because of the enabling legislation and because there is another, more reasonable, interpretation of the language in § 508.149.

¶20Why does § 508.149 refer to previous convictions? The answer becomes clear when considering the fact that many inmates, unlike Mabry, have multiple convictions. When an inmate has multiple convictions, he will have one conviction which governs his release date, either because it is the most recent, contains the longest sentence, or has the least amount of time credits. It is the conviction that will keep the prisoner in custody for the greatest amount of time. A prisoner’s governing or “holding” conviction could be for an offense committed after 1997, but he might also have a previous conviction for first-degree burglary. In that instance, the Legislature sought to make clear that § 508.149 would apply to him, because the holding conviction is for an offense that was committed after the statute’s effective date. Even if that holding conviction were not on the list of enumerated offenses, the prisoner would still be ineligible for mandatory supervision if he had previously been convicted of an offense on the list.

¶21So while the language seems confusing when applied to a case like Mabry’s, it makes good sense when considering an inmate with multiple convictions. As we recognized in Hall, the law that applies is the one in effect at the time the prisoner committed his holding offense, not his pri- or convietion(s). Since Mabry has only one conviction, he falls only within the first phrase of § 508.149 — -the “is serving a sentence for” language. This is because his only conviction is the sentence which he is serving. The second phrase — the “has been previously convicted of’ language— does not apply to Mabry.

¶22IV.

¶23The majority’s opinion is faulty in two respects.

¶24First, and most importantly, the majority does not do the work that I have done here. This ease is not so obvious as the majority makes it sound. We must acknowledge the phrase “has previously been convicted of’ in § 508.149 and explain why it does not require a different result.

¶25*64Additionally, the majority erroneously states, “Even if we apply the current version of the law, applicant remains eligible for mandatory supervision because his burglary conviction was based on intent to commit theft, which is exempted.”13 I see at least three flaws with this statement.

¶26First, it is dicta. The current version of the law does not apply, so we should not apply it.

¶27Second, the majority appears to confuse the notion of applying the former or current version of the mandatory supervision law with applying the former or current version of the burglary statute. The only issue in this case is whether to apply the former or current version of the mandatory supervision law. In no way should the current version of § 30.02 apply at all. Mabry was convicted under the previous version of § 30.02, not the current version. The current version of § 30.02 is irrelevant.

¶28Finally, even if the current version of § 30.02 were somehow relevant, the majority misreads that version. As best I can tell, the majority thinks that Mabry’s offense would not constitute a first-degree felony under the current statute because a conviction based on intent to commit theft “is exempted.”

¶29The current version of § 30.02 provides that a burglary is a first-degree felony if:

(1) the premises are a habitation; and

(2) any party to the offense entered the habitation with intent to commit a felony other than felony theft or committed or attempted to commit a felony other than felony theft.14

¶30The majority implies that this language “exempts” felony theft from constituting a first-degree burglary offense.

¶31Be that as it may, that is not the reason that Mabry’s actions would not constitute a first-degree felony under the current statute. The reason is that Mabry’s indictment alleged that, in the course of entering the habitation, Mabry committed or attempted to commit theft — not a felony theft or other felony. Mabry comes nowhere close to meeting the first-degree requirements of the current burglary statute because he was charged only with entering a habitation and attempting to commit or committing a misdemeanor.

¶32Nevertheless, all of this is beside the point because the current burglary statute is irrelevant in this case.

¶33V.

¶34Mabry is eligible for mandatory supervision because the law in effect at the time that he committed this burglary provided that he was eligible.

¶35He is also entitled to credit for the time he spent on parole. Under § 508.283(c),15 an inmate is entitled to that credit if two conditions are met. First, the inmate must not be described by § 508.149(a). As I already discussed, Mabry meets that requirement. The second condition has to do with the amount of time remaining on the prisoner’s sentence at the time that the parole revocation warrant is issued. If, at that time, the individual’s remaining sentence is less than the time period from the date of his release to the date the warrant was issued, then he receives credit for the time he spent on parole. In other words, the individual is entitled to credit for the time spent on parole if, at the time the *65warrant is issued, he has already served over half of his remaining sentence.16

¶36The record reflects that Mabry meets this requirement as well. Mabry attaches a parole eligibility worksheet from TDCJ. It reflects that as of Mabry’s most recent release to parole (1/17/97), he had a sentence discharge date of 2/21/04. So at the time of his release, he had almost 6 years remaining on his sentence. A parole revocation warrant was then issued against him on 9/20/01. At that time, Mabry had already served about 4 years and 8 months on parole, which is well over half of the 6 years that remained on his sentence. Or, in the language of the statute, the time remaining on Mabry’s sentence as of 9/20/01 was about 2 years and 5 months, which was less than the time he spent on parole (4 years and 8 months).

¶37As a result, Mabry is entitled to credit for the time spent on his most recent release to parole.

¶38VI.

¶39I concur in the Court’s judgment.

¶56concurring and dissenting

¶57I concur in the Court’s opinion regarding the issue of applicant’s eligibility for mandatory supervision, and I agree that applicant is entitled to some “street time” credit on his sentence, but, for the reasons given in my dissent in Ex parte Spann,11 disagree as to the amount of time credit. This opinion is just the first indication of the enormous impact of the Court’s erroneous interpretation of the time credit statute in Spann. The Spann opinion will affect every mandatory-supervision eligible prisoner who is entitled to street time credit. We are just now seeing the tip of the iceberg, as more and more prisoners will receive far more time credit than the Legislature intended to give them.

¶58In this case, for example, applicant receives over two years more time credit than he should. Instead of awarding applicant the 911 days that the Legislature intended to give him, the Court, under Spann, awards him the full 1707 days spent on the street — a difference of 796 days.2

¶59I respectfully dissent to the amount of time awarded.