1) Bobby R. was originally sentenced to three 10-year consecutive sentences but was released on mandatory supervision in 1985. He was later convicted of a new offense and given a 25-year sentence. 2) Bobby R. was released on parole in 1990 but his parole was revoked in 2001. He was denied 11 years and 8 months of "street time" credit. 3) Under the precedent set in Ex parte Keller, Bobby R. is entitled to receive street time credit before his parole was revoked because at the time the warrant was issued, he had spent more time out on release than he had remaining on his sentence.

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 II – Corrections Law Division
DATE: 8-2-2006
RE: Bobby 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 Bobby 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was revoked on 12-2-1986.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). Bobby R.
was again released to parole on 3-26-1990. As of 12-20-2000 Mr. Rogers
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issued on 11-12-2001 and his parole was revoked on 12-20-2001.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 on parole. Mr. R. was denied
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
Charles Campbell, Assistant General Counsel – charles.campbell@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. street 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, Rose R, 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 Bobby 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 Rogers’ 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
Page 2 of 3

3. credit for the time from the date of the person’s release to the date of revocation.
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 Roger’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 Bobby 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, Bobby 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