Smith v. Stephens Director TDCJ-CID
Filing
13
Memorandum Opinion and Order...the petition for writ under 28 USC 2255 is denied. A certificate of appealability is denied. (Ordered by Judge John McBryde on 7/10/2015) (wrb) Modified on 7/10/2015 (wrb).
t.,DITRI COURT
JS S CT
.
NORTHERN DI CTOFTEXAS
STRI
FILED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT C URT
F R T E NO T R DI T C OF T X
O H R HE N S RI T
AS
1
t1 -: 2 l
p
.
g5
j
FORT WORTH DIVISION
f
l
ClERK,I. ll (T-.( l T
2
J& )8TRIr f )tJ
' k
NATHAN A . SMITH ,
Petitioner ,
WILLIAM STEPHENS , D irector,
Texas Department of Criminal
Justice , Correctional
Institutions Division ,
Respondent .
5
!
j
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
*'
lcptf
' ly
.
'
.
. ..
.
.
.
.
No . 4 :14-CV -7O2-A
MEMO DAHDUM O PIN ION
ORDER
This
U .S .C .
a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
2254 filed by petitioner , Nathan A . Smith , a state
prisoner confined in the Correctional Institutions Division of
the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (
TDCJ), against William
Stephens, D irector of TDCJ , respondent .l A fter hav ing considered
the pleadings, state court records , and relief sought by
petitioner , the court has concluded that the petition should be
denied .
Factual and Procedural History
Petitioner is serving an eight-year sentence on his 2009
1
Although petitioner did not notify the court that he was transferred to
another prison unit , TDCJ 'S website reflects that he is now confined in the
Stringfellow Unit at 1200 FM 655 , Rosharon , Texas 77583. The clerk of court
is directed to change petitioner's address of record accordingly .
- . -.-.. . .
. . . ... .
o . . ..
i
Callahan County conviction for felony DWI in Case No . C67O3-A .
Pet .
ECF No .
WR-81,448-01 State Writ
ECF N1 . 10-2 . On
February 20 , 2014 , petitioner was denied release to mandatory
supervision by the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles (
the Board)
pursuant to 5 508.
149( of the Texas Government Code . WR5)
81 ,448-01 State Writ
ECF No . 10-2 . The record reflects that
the Board gave petitioner notice that he was to be considered for
mandatory supervision and an opportunity to submit ipformation in
favor of his release on August 22, 2013, that the Board notified
petitioner in writing that he was denied supervised release and
the reasons for its denial on February 2O, 2014 , and that the
Board informed petitioner that his next review date was set for
February 2015 . WR-81 ,448-01 State Writ 53, ECF No . 10-2 .
Resp 't's Answer Ex .
ECF No .
The Board denied petitioner 's
release for the following reasons :
9D1- The record indicates that the inmate 's accrued
good conduct time is not an accurate reflection of
the inmate 's potential for rehabilitation .
The record indicates that the inmate 's release
would endanger the public .
1D . The record indicates that the inmate has
repeatedly committed criminal episodes or has a
pattern of similar offenses that indicates a
predisposition to commit crim inal acts when
released ; or the record indicates that the inmate
is a leader or active participant in gang or
organized criminal activity ; or the record
indicates a juvenile or an adult arrest or
investigation for felony and misdemeanor offenses.
The record indicates excessive drug or alcohol
involvement which includes possession , use or
delivery in the instant offense pr criminal
history .
The record indicates unsuccessful periods of
supervision on prev ious probation , parole, or
mandatory supervision that resulted in
incarceration , including parole-in-absentia
revocations .
WR-81,448-01 State Writ 53, ECF No . 10-2 .
Petitioner sought administrative relief via a uPetition for
Special Review' to no avail and filed a state habeas corpus
'
application challenging the Board 's decision , which was denied
without written order by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals .
WR -81,448-01 State Writ uAction Taken ,' ECF No . 10-1; WR-81,448'
01 State Writ 58, ECF No . 10-2 . This federal petition followed .
Petitioner asserts that the Board 's decision is vague and
ambiguous because-
The denial notice contains a list of multiple choice
components, most of which do not app ly to Petitioner's
personal predicament, never fully arriving at a
definite conclusion , leaving Petitioner only to
speculate . The Board offers nothing which would afford
inmate as to where he falls short and what he may need
to address upon his next review to hopefully gain a
favorab le vote .
Pet 'r 's Mem . of Law 3 , ECF No .
He also asserts that the Board m isapp lied the statute in a
discriminatory and arb itrary fashion in light of his ngood
Conduct, academic achievements and the fulfillment of his
Institutional Treatment Plan' while incarcerated .
'
Td . at 4-5 .
II . Rule 5 Statement
Respondent believes that petitioner has sufficiently
exhausted his state remedies and that the petition is neither
time-barred nor successive . Resp 't 's Ans .
EC F N o . 11 .
111 . Discussion
The Texas mandatory supervision statute provides that ua
parole panel shall order the release of an inmate who is not on
parole to mandatory supervision when the actual calendar time the
inmate has served plus any accrued good conduct time equals the
term to which the inmate was sentenced .' TEX GOV'T . CODE A= .
'
5 508.
147(
a) (
West 2012). However,
( An inmate may not be released to mandatory
b)
supervision if a parole panel determines that :
( the inmate's accrued good conduct time is
1)
not an accurate reflection of the inmate 's
potential for rehabilitation ; and
( the inmate's release would endanger
2)
the pub lic .
( A parole panel that makes a determination
c)
under Subsection ( shall specify in writing the
b)
reasons for the determination .
Id. 5 5O8.
149(
b)-(
c) (
West Supp . 2014).
A habeas corpus petitioner under 28 U .S .C . 5 2254 must Claim
violation of a federal constitutional right to be entitled to
relief. Narvaiz v. JoAnson, 134 F. 688, 695 (
3d
5th Cir. 1998).
A state prisoner does not have a federal constitutional right to
obtain release prior to the expiration of his sentence .
Greenholtz
Inma tes of Neb . Penal and Corr . Comp lex , 442 U .S .
(
1979). Thus, any protected liberty interest to release
prior to exp iration of a petitioner 's sentence must arise from
state law .
The Fifth Circuit has held that Texas 's mandatory
supervision scheme does create a constitutional expectancy of
early release for eligib le inmates and , as such , a protected
liberty interest entitling an inmate to minimum due process
protection. See Teague v. Quarterman, 482 F.3d 769, 776-77 (
5th
Cir . 2007); Malchi v. TAaier,
F.3d 953, 957-58 (
5th Cir.
2000) (
citing Wolff v. McDonnell,
parte Geiken, 28 S.
W.3d
539, 557 (
1974)); Ex
558-60 (
Tex. Crim . App . 2000).
Toward that end , the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has
determ ined that , in this context, constitutional due process
requires that an eligible inmate be provided timely notice of the
specific month and year he will be considered for mandatory
supervision release and a meaningful opportunity to be
heard-ï .e w an opportunity
tender or have tendered to the
'
Board information in support of release .
Ex parte Geiken . 28
S. .3d at 559-607 Ex parte Ratzlaff, l35 S . .3d 45, 50 (
W
W
Tex.
Crim. App . 2004). Additionally, if release is denied, the inmate
must be informed in what respects he falls short of qualifying
for early release . Ex par te Geiken , 28 S . .3d at 560.
W
Petitioner was given timely notice that he would be
considered for mandatory supervision release , an opportunity to
present or have presented evidence to the Board in support of his
release , the reasons for the Board 's denial , and the month and
year he would be next considered . Accordingly , he received al1
the due process he was due . The Board is not required to prov ide
sP ecif ic reasons for its decision . Boss v . Quar terz an , 552 F .3d
n
425, 428-29 (
5th Cir. 2008) (
holding the Due Process Clause does
.
not require further exp lanation than the 'paragraphs cut verbatim
'
from the Parole Board's Directives' . Nor has petitioner shown
o
that the Board denied his release on mandatory supervision
because of any purposeful discrim ination or any impermissible
motive , such as race .
See Johnson v . Rodriguez , 11O F .3d 299 ,
306-08 ( h Cir . 1997). Accordingly, petitioner has failed to
5t
state a federal claim upon which relief can be granted .
For the reasons discussed herein ,
The court ORDERS the petition of petitioner for a Fvit of
6
l
I
z
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U . S .C . 5 2254 be, and is hereby ,
denied .
The court further ORDERS that a certificate of
appealability be , and is hereby , denied , as petitioner has not
made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutionàl
right .
SIGNED July
V ,21.
1 05
e
-'
-'
/
Z
.
.
'
xA
r
.
N M CBRYD E
ITED STATES DIST
CT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?