McCullough, Ex Parte Walter Iii

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

---

NO. AP-74,978

---

EX PARTE WALTER MCCULLOUGH, III, Applicant

---

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

FROM DALLAS COUNTY

---

Per Curiam. Meyers, J., not participating.

O P I N I O N  

This is an application for a writ of habeas corpus which was transmitted to this Court pursuant to the provisions of Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.07. Applicant was convicted of forgery in 2002 and was sentenced to three years confinement. Applicant did not perfect an appeal.

The present application for writ of habeas corpus was filed and set for submission to determine whether Applicant is entitled to consideration for release on mandatory supervision under Section 508.149 of the Texas Government Code, the discretionary mandatory supervision statute, not withstanding his prior conviction in 1988 for burglary of a habitation in the first-degree.

The parties briefed this issue. Both the State and applicant noted that the official writ file did not contain all of the evidence, documents, or other materials necessary to completely resolve this issue. The State asserted that applicant had multiple prior convictions for burglary, while applicant asserted that there was insufficient evidence in the writ record to establish that he had any prior burglary convictions. Because this was an unresolved factual dispute which could only be addressed by further fact finding in the trial court, we remanded the case to the convicting court to allow the parties to submit further information and materials to resolve that factual issue.

On remand, William W. Seigman, Director of the Review and Release Processing Section of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Parole Division, submitted a sworn affidavit. That affidavit included the information that applicant had been released on parole on November 19, 2004, with a maximum discharge date of April 11, 2005. Based upon this affidavit, we conclude that applicant's possible eligibility for release on mandatory supervision is now a moot issue.

We, therefore, dismiss the present habeas corpus application.

  Delivered: April 6, 2005

DO NOT PUBLISH