reiterating prior holding that constitutional due process requires Board to give inmates timely advance notice of their review for release on mandatory supervision
How later courts described this case
- reiterating prior holding that constitutional due process requires Board to give inmates timely advance notice of their review for release on mandatory supervision
- “On 1-29-2013, Applicant was provided notice that he was being reviewed for DMS on cause number 1011284D, and that he had until 2-28-2013 to provide any information to the Board of Pardons and Paroles (BPP) regarding his release.”
- following Ex parte Geiken
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
KELLER, P.J.,
filed a dissenting opinion
in which KEASLER and COCHRAN, J.J., joined.
In a post conviction collateral attack, it is not sufficient for an applicant to allege error. 1 He must also allege how the error harmed him. 2
Applicant alleges that the Board of Pardons and Paroles failed to give him adequate notice that he was to be considered for release to mandatory supervision. He establishes that the Board notified him that he would be considered for release on certain dates, but then made the determination to deny release before those dates. But applicant has failed to alleged any harm resulting from the Board’s early consideration of his case.
In Ex parte Geiken, 3 we determined that V.T.C.A. Gov’t Code § 508.147 created a liberty interest in mandatory supervision release. 4 We also said that if a liberty interest is created by a statute, due process requires notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard. 5 I believe that an allegation of a lack of a meaningful opportunity to be heard is an allegation of harm. But applicant in this case was notified that his case would be considered and was provided an opportunity to be heard. Al *177 though he has proven that the hearing was not when he was told it would be, he has not alleged that because of the date discrepancy his opportunity to be heard was not meaningful, e.g. that there was evidence he was prevented from presenting because of the Board’s early consideration of the case.
I respectfully dissent.
. See Ex Parte Maldonado, 688 S.W.2d 114, 116 (Tex.Crim.App.1985).
. See id.
. 28 S.W.3d 553 (Tex.Crim.App.2000).
. Id. at 558 .
. Id. at 560 (citing LaChance v. Erickson, 522 U.S. 262, 266 , 118 S.Ct. 753 , 139 L.Ed.2d 695 (1998)).