Ex parte Evans

• Decision Date: 11 March 1998
• Docket Number: No. 72876,72876
• Citation: 964 S.W.2d 643
• Parties: Ex Parte Larue EVANS.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

Page 643

964 S.W.2d 643

Ex Parte Larue EVANS.

No. 72876.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas,

En Banc.

March 11, 1998.

Rehearing Denied April 22, 1998.

Larue Evans, Dalhart, pro se.

Ernest Davila, Asst. Dist. Atty., Houston, Matthew Paul, State's Atty., Austin, for State.

Before the court en banc.

OPINION

PRICE, Judge.

Applicant filed this post-conviction application for a writ of habeas corpus in the trial court, which was then forwarded to this Court pursuant to Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. TEX.CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 (Vernon Supp.1997). ¹ In 1989, Applicant was convicted of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to ten years in prison. No appeal was taken from this conviction.

Here, Applicant contends that he has been denied credit on his sentence for time that he spent in jail prior to trial, as well as time that he spent in custody pursuant to parole pre-revocation "blue" warrants. Both claims are cognizable under Article 11.07. See Ex parte Harris, 946 S.W.2d 79 (Tex.Crim.App.1997); Ex parte Canada, 754 S.W.2d 660 (Tex.Crim.App.1988). ²

Before we reach the merits of Applicant's claims, however, we must determine whether his claims are procedurally barred.

I. Applicant's Claims

This is Applicant's second application under Article 11.07 pertaining to this cause. In his first application, filed in the trial court on October 24, 1996, Applicant raised various claims concerning a parole revocation hearing which occurred in 1996. Specifically, he argued that his hearing had been untimely, that he had been denied counsel and confrontation at his hearing, and that his hearing officer was biased against him. We denied relief without written order on the findings of the trial court without a hearing. Ex parte Evans, No. 33,043-01 (Tex.Crim.App. March 26, 1997).

On May 8, 1997, Applicant filed the instant application in the trial court. In it, he seeks credit for time he spent in jail in 1984, 1992, 1993, and 1995. The trial court initially, on June 18, 1997, recommended relief be denied because:

Applicant has failed to include sufficient specific facts establishing that the current claims could not have been presented previously because the factual or legal basis for the claim was unavailable; or that, by a preponderance of the evidence, no rational juror could have found the applicant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. TEX.CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 § 4(a) (Vernon Supp.1997).

Subsequently, on July 21, 1997, the trial court signed Applicant's proposed "Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law." In these findings, the trial court found that records from the Michigan Department of Corrections and the Harris County Sheriff's Department corroborate Applicant's claims. As a result, the trial court found that Applicant has been denied flat time and good time credits on his sentence and recommends that this Court grant relief. On August 29, 1997, the trial court rescinded its initial findings.

II. Article 11.07

's Section Four Procedural Bar

On August 1, 1997, Applicant filed a document entitled "Supplement to Habeas Corpus Providing Information to Meet Criterion of Article 11.07 Section 4(c) Subsection (a)(1)." In it, he argues that his prior writ application was not an attack on the conviction under the meaning of § 4. ³ He also claims that he is not attacking his trial in the instant application because he believes the presiding judge at his trial "scrupulously protected Applicant's State and constitutional rights during all phases of the criminal proceedings." Applicant states that the term "conviction" should be construed to mean "any and all proceedings pertaining to pretrial events through the sentencing phase." He argues that claims regarding parole revocation hearings, disciplinary hearings, et cetera, that would not result in a reversal of a conviction but only in a new hearing, cannot be construed as "attacks" on the original conviction. Finally, Applicant states that the trial court must distinguish between allegations that involve an attack on the conviction and allegations that "involve an attack on an entirely different matter which does not have anything to do with the conviction other than sharing the same forum for fact finding."

A. Defining "Challenge to a Conviction''

We filed and set this cause to determine whether the instant application is barred by Article 11.07, § 4. Specifically, we must determine whether, under § 4, Applicant's "initial application challeng[ed] the same conviction" as the instant application, since the initial application pertained only to Applicant's parole revocation hearing. ⁴

Article 11.07, § 4, provides in pertinent part as follows:

Sec. 4. (a) If a subsequent application for writ of habeas corpus is filed after final disposition of an initial application challenging the same conviction, a court may not consider the merits of or grant relief based on the subsequent application unless the application contains sufficient specific facts establishing that:

(1) the current claims and issues have not been and could not have been presented previously in an original application or in a previously considered application filed under this article because the factual or legal basis for the claim was unavailable on the date the applicant filed the previous application; or

(2) by a preponderance of the evidence, but for a violation of the United States Constitution no rational juror could have found the applicant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Art. 11.07, § 4 (emphasis added).

The starting point in analyzing the meaning of a statute is the language of the statute itself. Brown v. State, 943 S.W.2d 35, 36 (Tex.Crim.App.1997). When a statute is clear and unambiguous, we apply the plain meaning of its words. Ramos v. State, 934 S.W.2d 358, 364 (Tex.Crim.App.1996), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 117 S.Ct. 1556, 137 L.Ed.2d 704 (1997); Boykin v. State, 818 S.W.2d 782, 785 (Tex.Crim.App.1991). When, however, the words are ambiguous, or the plain meaning of the words would lead to an absurd result which the legislature could not possibly have intended, we look to extratextual factors to ascertain the statute's meaning. State v. Mancuso, 919 S.W.2d 86, 88 (Tex.Crim.App.1996); Boykin, 818 S.W.2d at 785.

The phrases "challenge to a conviction" or "challenging a conviction" are not defined in Article 11.07 or in any other article in the Code of Criminal Procedure, nor are they defined in any other Texas statute. We therefore consider the definitions of the individual words. According to Black's Law Dictionary, the key words may be defined as follows:

Challenge. To object or except to; to formally call into question ... the sufficiency or validity of an instrument; to call or put in question; to put into dispute; ...

Conviction. In a general sense, the result of a criminal trial which ends in a judgment or sentence that the accused is guilty as charged. The final consummation of the prosecution including the judgment or sentence, or as is frequently the case, the judgment or sentence itself. The stage of a criminal proceeding where the issue of guilt is determined.

BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY (6th ed.1990).

Although the Code of Criminal procedure does not define "conviction," the Code significantly narrows the meaning given to "conviction" in the context of a criminal proceeding. Under Article 42.01, for instance, a "judgment" is defined, in part, as "the written declaration of the court signed by the trial judge and entered of record showing the conviction or acquittal of the defendant." Art. 42.01 § 1 (emphasis added). Throughout Article 42.01 the term "conviction" refers to the jury's decision of guilt--again, a limited view of the term. Id. at § 1(8), (9), (10), (13), (14) & (27).

This is not, however, the Court's first attempt to define the term "conviction." While dissenting, former Judge Teague sagely noted that "considerable force can be put behind the proposition that [conviction] means different things in different statutes." Ex parte Renier, 734 S.W.2d 349, 365 (Tex.Crim.App.1987) (Teague, J., dissenting) (discussing definition of "final conviction" under Article 11.07). He explained that "an argument can be made that the word means 'verdict of guilt' in some places and 'judgment on the verdict of guilt' in others." Id. (citations omitted). Agreeing with Judge Teague's observations, we too conclude that this Court has most often "construed the term 'conviction' to mean a judgment of guilt and the assessment of punishment." Id. (citations omitted).

B. Parole Revocations

Based on these definitions, a challenge to a conviction would appear to be limited to claims regarding "the final consummation of the prosecution," "the judgment or sentence that the accused is guilty as charged," or "a judgment of guilty and the assessment of punishment." This interpretation would exclude matters such as parole revocations from the ambit of § 4, because a parole revocation issue does not call into question the validity of the prosecution or judgment; rather, it questions issues arising after the completion of the prosecution.

It is true that claims regarding parole revocation hearings are cognizable under Article 11.07. Board of Pardons and Paroles ex rel Keene v. Court of Appeals for the Eighth District, 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex.Crim.App.1995). In order to raise these claims, like claims pertaining to trial, an applicant must file his application in the court and county in which he was convicted. Ex parte Woodward, 619 S.W.2d 179 (Tex.Crim.App.1981); Ex parte Alexander, 861 S.W.2d 921, 922 (Tex.Crim.App.1993). Thus, in a general sense, an applicant files a writ application attacking the judgment of conviction which has resulted in his confinement, regardless of the content of his actual claim. Woodward, 619 S.W.2d at 179.

Nevertheless, we recognized in Woodward that a claim regarding a parole revocation "is not addressed to the validity...