Ex parte Peel

7 Citing cases

  1. Ex Parte Elliott

    746 S.W.2d 762 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988)   Cited 14 times

    Moreover, the fact that applicant is no longer actually confined in the penitentiary is not dispositive of his standing before us, since during his term of parole he is "in custody" and "confined" in terms of statutory construction. See Art. 11.21, V.A.C.C.P. See also Ex parte Henderson, 645 S.W.2d 469 (Tex.Cr.App. 1983); and Ex parte Peel, 626 S.W.2d 767 (Tex.Cr.App. 1982). See and compare Ex parte Renier, 734 S.W.2d 349 (Tex.Cr.App. 1987).

  2. McWilliams v. State

    719 S.W.2d 380 (Tex. App. 1986)   Cited 5 times
    In McWilliams v. State, 719 S.W.2d 380, 381 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1986), rev'd on other grounds, 782 S.W.2d 871 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990), appellant resided in a halfway house "designated as a unit of TDC" and evidence showed that appellant was informed the halfway house was so designated.

    By contrast, parole is "a form of constructive custody." Ex parte Peel, 626 S.W.2d 767 (Tex.Crim.App. 1982). Third, sec. 2(b) provides that the pre-parole transferee "is subject to the good conduct time provisions of Art. 6181-1. . . ."

  3. Blair v. Dretke

    NO. 3-03-CV-1001-L (N.D. Tex. Sep. 17, 2003)

    Nor is a parolee entitled to good time credit while on parole or under mandatory supervision. See Ex parte Peel, 626 S.W.2d 767, 768 (Tex.Crim.App. 1982); see also TEX. Gov'T CODE ANN. § 498.003(c) ("An inmate may not accrue good time during any period the inmate . . . is on parole or under mandatory supervision."). There is no evidence that the parole laws have been applied retroactively to deprive petitioner of any right under federal or state law.

  4. Ex Parte Millard

    48 S.W.3d 190 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001)   Cited 15 times

    Ex parte Evans, 964 S.W.2d 643, 645 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998); Ex parte Ruthart, 980 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998); Ex parte Canada, 754 S.W.2d 660, 663 (Tex.Crim.App. 1988). See also Ex parte Henson, 731 S.W.2d 97 (Tex.Crim.App. 1987); Ex parte Peel, 626 S.W.2d 767 (Tex.Crim.App. 1982); Ex parte Hurd, 613 S.W.2d 742 (Tex.Crim.App. 1981); Ex parte Pizzalota, 610 S.W.2d 486 (Tex.Crim.App. 1981); Ex parte Weaver, 537 S.W.2d 252 (Tex.Crim.App. 1976); Esquivel, 531 S.W.2d at 340-42.Ex parte Stokes, 15 S.W.3d 532, 533 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000).

  5. Ex Parte Canada

    754 S.W.2d 660 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988)   Cited 104 times
    Holding that defendant was entitled to flat time credit for period between execution of pre-revocation warrant and date on which parole was formally revoked, though statute denied credit for any time on parole

    The applicant is not challenging his conviction, but is instead challenging the time necessary to fulfill his sentence, and this Court has previously held that the duration of a prisoner's confinement and applicable time credits is a proper subject for an Article 11.07, supra, writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte Henson, 731 S.W.2d 97 (Tex.Cr.App. 1987); Ex parte Peel, 626 S.W.2d 767 (Tex.Cr.App. 1982); Ex parte Hurd, 613 S.W.2d 742 (Tex.Cr.App. 1981); Ex parte Pizzalota, 610 S.W.2d 486 (Tex.Cr.App. 1981); Ex parte Weaver, 537 S.W.2d 252 (Tex.Cr.App. 1976); Ex parte Esquivel, 531 S.W.2d 339 (Tex.Cr.App. 1976). Further, a time credit complaint is not rendered moot if direct or collateral legal consequences may flow from the wrongful denial of earned time credit.

  6. Evans v. State

    No. 11-18-00125-CR (Tex. App. Jun. 11, 2020)

    Parole is a form of constructive custody. Ex parte Peel, 626 S.W.2d 767, 768 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982). However, it is not the type of custody that entitles a parolee to good time or trusty time.

  7. Werner v. State

    445 S.W.3d 301 (Tex. App. 2013)   Cited 13 times
    Considering amount of bail set before trial in setting bail under article 44.04(h)

    The Court of Criminal Appeals has similarly recognized that parole is a form of custody by the State. See Ex parte Peel, 626 S.W.2d 767, 768 (Tex.Crim.App.1982) (holding parole is “a form of constructive custody”). While the Court of Criminal Appeals referred to parole as “constructive custody,” the statute does not distinguish between types of custody for its application.