Opinion

in Re Brian Paniagua

Court
Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)
Filed
Apr 15, 2021
Status
Published
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 15.3%

explaining that Article 11.07 “provides the exclusive means to challenge a final felony conviction”

How later courts described this case

  • explaining that Article 11.07 “provides the exclusive means to challenge a final felony conviction”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-21-00068-CV

In re Brian Paniagua

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM COMAL COUNTY

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator Brian Paniagua, an inmate in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice,

has filed a petition for writ of mandamus in which he asserts that the real party in interest, the

executive director of the Department, has abused his discretion by failing to recognize the

jail-time credit calculated by the trial court in connection with Paniagua’s conviction for the

felony offense of possession of a prohibited substance in a correctional facility.1 See Tex. Penal

Code § 38.11(g). Paniagua contends that he is being unlawfully confined and requests that we

command his release “from custody immediately.”

Paniagua’s complaint is that, based on the jail-time credit reflected in his

judgment of conviction, he is being incarcerated past “his presumptive discharge date,” a

complaint which is properly raised by filing an application for writ of habeas corpus in the

county of conviction. See Ex Parte Ybarra, 149 S.W.3d 147, 148 n.2 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004)

(“If applicant has been incarcerated past his presumptive discharge date, this is no longer a time

1

According to the judgment of conviction submitted by Paniagua in support of his

petition, he was sentenced to “two (2) years confinement in the Institutional Division, [Texas

Department of Criminal Justice],” “the sentence [to] run concurrently,” and was given jail-time

credit for “716 days.”

credit claim but an illegal confinement claim.”); Board of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v.

Court of Appeals for Eighth Dist., 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (explaining that

Article 11.07 “provides the exclusive means to challenge a final felony conviction”); see also

Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.07 (procedure after conviction without death penalty). Article

11.07 vests complete jurisdiction to grant post-conviction habeas corpus relief in final felony

convictions in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Keene, 910 S.W.2d at 483 (citing Tex.

Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.07 §§ 3, 5). Consequently, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

__________________________________________

Chari L. Kelly, Justice

Before Justices Goodwin, Triana, and Kelly

Filed: April 15, 2021

2

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.