holding that the judicial process is not always available to ensure error-free decision making by the executive, at least with respect to non- constitutional “rights”
How later courts described this case
- holding that the judicial process is not always available to ensure error-free decision making by the executive, at least with respect to non- constitutional “rights”
- holding that an inmate is entitled to the opportunity to be heard but is not entitled to a live hearing before the making of a release decision by the Parole Board
- holding that inmate is entitled to opportunity to be heard before Board makes decision of whether to release inmate under mandatory supervision
- addressing the reviewability of the Parole Board’s decision to deny mandatory supervision in light of Texas Government Code § 508.149(d), which precludes “administrative or judicial review” of the Board’s discretionary 11Respondent’s MSJ, Docket Entry No. 14, p. 5. 12Id. (citing Bautista v. McCotter, 793 F.2d 109, 110 (5th Cir. 1986)). -8- decisions
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WOMACK, Justice,
dissenting.
In my view, a convicted person who seeks relief from an error in an administrative decision of the Department of Criminal Justice may not use the procedure in article 11.07 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which “establishes the procedures for an application for a writ of habeas corpus in which the applicant seeks relief from a felony judgment imposing a penalty other than death.” * See Ex parte Whiteside, 12 S.W.3d 819, 822 (Tex.Cr.App.2000) (Womack, J., concurring). Because this application does not seek relief from a judgment, I would dismiss it without prejudice to the applicant’s seeking relief through a proper procedure. I respectfully dissent.
Tex.Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.07, § 1.