deciding that applicant’s community supervision was revoked without due process of law “because it was revoked solely on the basis of perjured testimony”
How later courts described this case
- deciding that applicant’s community supervision was revoked without due process of law “because it was revoked solely on the basis of perjured testimony”
- recognizing that due process applies to parole revocations
- noting that “a collateral attack is ‘[a]n attack on a judgment entered in a different proceeding.’ ”
- noting that Aa collateral attack is >[a]n attack on a judgment entered in a different proceeding.=@
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WOMACK, J.,
filed a concurring opinion.
It seems to me there are three issues.
The first is, shall habeas corpus relief be granted from a judgment revoking community supervision when the judge of the convicting court has found from the testimony of recanting witnesses, and this Court agrees, that the defendant did not violate the conditions of his community supervision? I would hold that, if habeas corpus relief from a judgment of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt will be granted on the basis of recantations, as this court has held, 1 then it must follow that relief from a community-supervision revocation will be granted.
Second, is habeas corpus relief on that basis available in the particular kind of community supervision called “deferred adjudication,” despite the statutory provision, “No appeal may be taken from this determination” 2 ? For the reasons given in the opinion of the Court, ante at 496, I agree that it is.
Finally, is the relief the Court gives in this case proper? I agree that it is.
. See Ex parte Elizondo, 947 S.W.2d 202 (Tex.Cr.App.1996).
. See Code Crim. Proc. art 42.12, § 5(b).