# Luquis v. State > Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · April 10, 2002 · 72 S.W.3d 355 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9732921 ## Case - **Full name:** Edgar LUQUIS, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas - **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas - **Decided:** April 10, 2002 - **Citations:** 72 S.W.3d 355; 2002 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 76; 2002 WL 531145 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurrence by Johnson - **Judges:** Cochran, Keller, Meyers, Keasler, Hervey, Holcomb, Price, Womack, Johnson - **Cited by:** 331 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9732921 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - explaining––in response to argument that reenactment of parole-law instruction following constitutional amendment authorizing same was nonetheless unconstitutional––that “this Court determined that the re- enacted statute did not violate a defendant’s due course of law rights … - stating that the final instructions “clearly warn the jury that neither they, nor anyone else, can accurately predict how the concepts of ‘good conduct time’ or parole might be applied to any particular person and thus they may not consider how those concepts might apply to th… - noting that purpose of instruction under prior version of article 37.07 was generally to inform jurors of the concepts of good-conduct time and parole and then prohibit jury from using those concepts in its calculus in assessing appropriate punishment - holding parole instruction as sanctioned in article 37.07(4)(a) does not violate the due course of law provision in article I, section 19 of the Texas Constitution or the federal constitution’s due process clause - holding parole instruction as sanctioned in article 37.07 does not violate the due course of law provision in article I, section 19 of the Texas Constitution or the federal constitution’s due process clause ## Opinion text JOHNSON, J., filed a concurring opinion. Appellant asserts that the statutory instruction at issue should not be applied to him because he is not eligible to have good-conduct time count toward his parole eligibility date. The first two paragraphs of art. 37.07, § 4(a) discuss good-conduct time and parole as means of reducing the period of incarceration and are couched in terms of “possible,” “may,” and “might.” The third paragraph discusses the application of parole eligibility to this appellant and is expressed in terms of certainty: “he will not become eligible,” and “he must serve.” It also unequivocally sets out that the minimum time of actual incarceration is without consideration of any good-conduct time appellant accrues and points out that being eligible for parole does not guarantee release. The final two paragraphs are directed at the deliberations on sentencing and caution the jurors that release on parole and denial of release are neither predictable nor under their control or influence. The existence of parole is common knowledge. It is human nature to wonder how parole impacts the length of incarceration. It may be argued that the instruction is contradictory in that it tells the jurors that they may consider the exis *369 tence of parole, but that they may not consider how parole law will affect a given defendant, or that the instruction is akin to showing the jurors a pink elephant, and then saying, “Don’t think about that pink elephant.” In my experience, jurors already know about the elephant; they need information on how the elephant performs in the situation presented to them. The instruction in art 87.07 appears to be an effort to impart to the jury relevant information so that the inevitable wondering is both informed and circumscribed. When considered as a whole, the instruction in art 37.07, § 4(a) accurately sets out the law applicable to this case and to appellant’s circumstances. Appellant is eligible to accrue good-conduct credit, as set out in the first paragraph; he will, in fact, accrue and lose good-conduct time just like any other prisoner. As set out in the second paragraph, at some point it is possible that appellant may be released on parole. This is true as applied to appellant. The third paragraph makes it clear that release to parole will not occur until the lesser of thirty years or one-half of appellant’s sentence has been served and that good conduct-time will not count until then. This is also a correct statement. The final paragraphs reflect the reality that the time that appellant will actually spend incarcerated is only partly determined by the jury’s decision on sentencing. It is only when the instruction’s parts are examined in isolation that the probability of violation of due process arises. The jury was given the entire instruction in correct form. I concur in the judgment of the Court. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9732921. Public record. Not legal advice.