Offender B.R. is entitled to 11 years and 8 months of street time credit based on the Ex parte Keller ruling. Keller established that an inmate must receive street time credit if the remaining sentence portion is less than time spent on parole or mandatory supervision. Here, B.R.'s remaining sentence was less than his time spent on parole. Further, B.R. was eligible for mandatory supervision for his 1986 offense under the law in effect at that time, so he remains eligible and is due the street time credit.

1. T e x a s D e p a r t m e n t o f C r i m i n a l J u s t i c e
Brad Livingston
Executive Director
TO: Charles Campbell – Assistant General Counsel – Corrections Law Division
CC: Charley Valdez – State Classification Committee
FROM: Bert McManus – Legal Assistant III – Corrections Law Division
DATE: 8-2-2006
RE: B. R. TDCJ #xxxxxx Street Time Credit
FACTS: Mr. R. originally was convicted of Aggravated Assault with a Deadly
Weapon, Aggravated Sexual Abuse, and Burglary of a Habitation and given three
10-year consecutive sentences in The Texas Department of Criminal Justice
(TDCJ). The offender was sentenced for all three offenses on 2-25-1983. In 1-17-
1985 B. R. was released from custody to mandatory supervision. He then returned
to TDCJ with a new charge of Burglary of a Habitation (Enhanced) in violation of
mandatory supervision. Mr. R. was convicted of the new offense and received a 25
year sentence on 11-20-1986. The offender’s mandatory supervision was revoked
on 12-2-1986. The law, in place at the time of this conviction, identified him as
being eligible for mandatory supervision. The remainder of his sentences, for prior
convictions, ran concurrent with his new one. All three of Mr. R’s prior
convictions were discharged on 2-26-1993. The offender remained in custody for
the 25 year sentence of Burglary of a Habitation (enhanced). B. R. was again
released to parole on 3-26-1990. As of 12-20-2000 Mr. R reached the midpoint
calculation of his sentence. A pre-revocation warrant was issued on 11-12-2001
and his parole was revoked on 12-20-2001. On 1-29-2002 he was returned to
custody in TDCJ for violating terms of his parole. The offender was denied 11
years and 8 months street time credit while on parole. Mr. R. was denied street
Our mission is to provide public safety, promote positive change in offender
behavior, reintegrate offenders into society, and assist victims of crime.
Office of the General Counsel
Bert McManus, Legal Assistant – bert.mcmanus@tdcj.state.tx.us
P.O. Box 13084 Capitol Station P.O. Box 4004
Austin, Texas 78711-3084 Huntsville, Texas 77342-4004
Phone (512) 463-9899, FAX (512) 936-2159 Phone (936) 437-6698, FAX (936) 437-6994

2. time credit due to his prior offense of Aggravated Sexual Abuse based on Texas
Government Code § 508.149(a)(8). On 8-29-2003 and 4-19-2004 The TDCJ State
Classification Committee received time credit dispute forms from Mr. R.
concerning his time credits. The offender was then referred to The State Counsel
for Offenders and the Criminal District Attorney’s office where he was last
convicted for assistance. It appears that on 5-15-2006 The TDCJ – Office of
Ombudsman received a letter from Mr. R’s wife stating that her husband’s case is
governed by Ex parte Keller and should not be denied his 11years and 8 months
street time credit. The letter was then forwarded to the Office of General Counsel
for determination.
ISSUE: Whether Offender B. R., an inmate in The Texas Department of Criminal
Justice, is entitled under Keller to receive 11 years and 8 months “street time”
credit on his 25 year sentence?
ANSWER: Offender R. comes under the umbrella of Ex parte Keller and
therefore is entitled to street time credit before his parole was revoked.
ANALYSIS: The case which encompasses inmate R’s issues is Ex parte Keller
173 S.W.3d 492 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). The applicable codes are Tex. Gov’t
Code § 508.283(c) (West 2006), Tex. Gov’t Code § 508.149(a)(8) (West 2006).
We have previously held that the purpose of Section 508.283(c) which applies to
any parole or mandatory supervision revocation occurring after September 1, 2001
is that “certain parole violators will receive street-time credit if the ‘remaining
portion’ of their sentence is less than the amount of time they have spent out on
parole. Keller at p. 494. That is if the “remaining portion” of an inmate’s sentence
is greater that the time spent on parole or mandatory supervision, he may not
receive credit for that “street time.” On the other hand, if the “remaining portion”
of his sentence is less than the time spent on parole or mandatory supervision, that
inmate will receive credit of all of his “street time.” Id. As [we stated before] the
wording in §508.283(c) is [vague] and is subject to different interpretations. Id,
citing Ex parte Spann 132 S.W. 3d 390, 392 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). [T]he
wording concerning the third class of offenders [listed in § 508.283(c)] is
confusing. Id. The statue reads as follows:
If the parole, mandatory supervision, or conditional pardon of a person, other than
a person described by § 508.149(a), is revoked the person may be required to serve
the remaining portion of the sentence on which the person was released. For a
person, who on the date of issuance of a warrant or summons initiating the
revocation process, is subject to a sentence the remaining portion of which is
greater than the amount of time from the date of the person’s release to the date of
issuance of the warrant or summons, the remaining portion is to be served without
credit for the time from the date of the person’s release to the date of revocation.
Page 2 of 3

3. For a person, who on the date of issuance of the warrant or summons is subject to a
sentence the remaining portion of which is less than the amount of time from the
person’s release to the date of issuance of the warrant or summons, the remaining
portion is to be served without credit for an amount of time equal to the remaining
portion of the sentence on the date of issuance of the warrant or citation. Id.
However, not all inmates are eligible for street-time credit. Id. Under
§508.283(c), only an inmate “other than a person described by §508.149(a)”
qualifies. Id. [This] section sets out a list of specific offenses for which an inmate
is ineligible for release on mandatory supervision. Id. Included in this list is
offender R’s previous offense of Tex. Penal Code § 22.021 (West 2006) of
Aggravated Sexual Abuse in the 1st
degree. Under § 508.149(a), an inmate is
ineligible for mandatory supervision if he is “serving a sentence for or has been
previously convicted of” one of these offenses. Keller at p.495.
[Section] 508.283 would grant applicant “street time” credit if, at the time the
parole revocation warrant issued, he had spent more time on release than he had
left to serve and he is not a person “described by § 508.149(a).” However,
[Eligibility] for mandatory supervision is governed by the law in effect at the time
the offense was committed. Id. When applicant committed his “holding offense”,
[the 1986 burglary of a habitation] he was eligible for release to mandatory
supervision. Id. Once eligible, he remains eligible regardless of whether the
applicable mandatory supervision law has changed in the meantime. Id.
The 1986 law which was in effect at the time of Mr. R’s holding offense is Tex.
Code Crim. Proc. art.42.12 § 8(c) (West 1986). The code states “A prisoner who is
not on parole, except a person under sentence of death, shall be released to
mandatory supervision by order of the board when the calendar time he has served
plus any accrued good time equal the maximum term to which he was sentenced.”
According to the State Classification Committee response letter from Charley
Valdez, Offender R. is eligible for mandatory supervision on 10-18-2009 without
the 11 years 8 months street time credit in question.
According to Ex parte Keller, B. R. is under the provisions of the 1986 Code
of Criminal Procedure which states that except for death penalty cases an inmate
shall be released to mandatory supervision. Since offender R. was eligible for
mandatory supervision in 1986, when he committed the offense, he is still eligible
for mandatory supervision. Likewise, since the offender reached the midpoint of
his sentence before the revocation warrant was issued he is entitled to the 11 years
and 8 months of street time credit.
Page 3 of 3