\u00a0<\/span>For those families hoping for some help from this legislature this article may hold out some hope the Board of Pardons and Paroles may increase the release rate for the next two years. This may be the best time to put forth a strong argument as to why the Parole Board should release the inmate.\u00a0 The burden is still on the inmate to prove the he\/she should be released. The requirement the Board must believe there is a reasonable chance for the inmate to become a productive citizen and give up his\/ her past life style of drugs and criminal behavior will still be required to gain release.\u00a0 The inmate still must convince the Board he\/she will change and not be coming back to prison on new criminal charges to gain parole. There will not be any wholesale releases from prison just because there may be budget problems, instead the Board may now consider other factors when hearing arguments and reading the Parole Package at the Parole Board Appearance to determine if an inmate will be released to parole. Please understand the prison budget is still being put together by the legislature and there is a possibility more money may be allocated from other state programs to reduce the shortfall in the prison budget. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span>$421M needed for upgrades, inmate care.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

\n
\n
$6.7 billion<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0Budget for running Texas prisons and corrections programs for two years.<\/span><\/p>\n
147,000<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0Number of inmates, of whom 46 percent are over 55.<\/span><\/p>\n
$247 million<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0Cost of prisoner\u2019s health care for two years.<\/span><\/p>\n
$55.6 million<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0Needed for prison repairs and renovations.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
AUSTIN –\u00a0State lawmakers may consider shuttering another prison and paroling some older, infirm inmates to nursing homes in a bid to shift more than $400 million in funding toward rising health care costs and much-needed repairs and upgrades to Texas an aging corrections facility\u2019s.<\/span><\/p>\n
The state already is poised to spend more than $6.7 billion over the next two years for prisons and corrections programs. But with the Legislature looking at the tightest state budget in years, lawmakers quietly are looking for ways to save $421 million in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice operations to cover surging costs associated with overseeing the state\u2019s 147,000 convicts.<\/span><\/p>\n
Topping the list is $247 million to pay the costs of convict\u2019s health care during the next two years, including facilities, doctors, equipment and medicines. Much of that increased cost for care is needed to provide health care to an aging prison population, said Bryan Collier, executive director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.<\/span><\/p>\n
Forty-six percent of the states convicts are over age 55, a group that accounts for 40 percent of expensive hospital visits, officials said.<\/span><\/p>\n
To help cover those growing costs, Collier said officials are looking to increase the co-pay amount charged to convicts for health care from $100 to $200 a year. Thousands of those convicts, however, are indigent and cannot afford to pay for their care.<\/span><\/p>\n
Officials said Monday that another state prison could be shuttered to save cash, the fifth in six years in a state that once went more than a century without closing one.<\/span><\/p>\n
Just as Texas became a national model 10 years ago, for funding new treatment programs to cut recidivism rather than build new prisons, legislative leaders predict the current budget crisis could give birth to new innovation and savings in the largest state prison system in the United States.<\/span><\/p>\n
In one respect, it\u2019s good to have a tight budget session like this one, because when I look at the little bitty kids who are facing cuts in their therapy, it makes me realize that we need to tighten up every way, look for every efficiency in our criminal justice programs that we can find\u201d said House Corrections Committee Chairman James White, a Hillister Republican whose East Texas district east of Huntsville is dotted with prisons. That\u2019s exactly what we\u2019re going to do.<\/span><\/p>\n
Senate Criminal Justice Committee Chairman John Whitmire, a Houston Democrat who has overseen prison operations for more than two decades, agreed. He and Senate leaders are pushing for changes in prison operations to make the state\u2019s corrections agency “one of the largest state agencies, with more than 35,000 employees” operate more efficiently.<\/span><\/p>\n
\u201cI want to move them from a 1950s operations model to a 2017 model, he said. We have thousands of empty beds at 109 state prisons. You shut some prisons, mothball some and consolidate the inmates. Then reinvest some of the money you save in treatment programs that save even more. The savings could be very significant.<\/span><\/p>\n
Dire need<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n
Collier said agency officials are open to discussing opportunities for saving money. For example, he said that in addition to shuttering a downtown Houston parole lockup last December to save $13 million, officials are considering whether to combine two side-by-side prison units in Colorado City, in West Texas, to save millions more.<\/span><\/p>\n
While the Senate and House draft budgets fund current prison operations, Collier said they come up $421 million short to pay for items that are fundamentally important to the operations of the agency.<\/span><\/p>\n
In addition to the rising costs of prison care, another $55.6 million is needed \u00e2\u20ac\u201d but not included in either chambers initial budget\u201d for renovations and repairs to Texas prisons, some of which are more than 100 years old and are in dire need of new roofs, fire alarm systems, leaky water systems, security fencing and lighting upgrades.<\/span><\/p>\n
On the list is the main prison hospital in Galveston, which officials say needs $22 million in repairs.<\/span><\/p>\n
The department says it also needs another $19 million to upgrade its 40-year-old mainframe computer system, $15.4 million for 1,000 additional substance-abuse treatment beds, and $10 million for a video surveillance system in three maximum-security prisons.<\/span><\/p>\n
To cover those costs, Senate budget writers say they are looking at whether prisons can be closed or consolidated in places where two units are located adjacent to each other. Whitmire said many of the oldest prisons are the most expensive to operate, such as the Jester 1 and Vance units in Richmond and the Gatesville, Hilltop and Mountain View units in Gatesville.<\/span><\/p>\n
Look at everything<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n
Lawmakers in both the Senate and House confirmed they also are looking at whether elderly and infirm convicts now housed in prisons at sole expense to the state, and who pose no threat to the public, could be paroled to nursing homes or outside living centers so their health care costs can be covered by federal programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid.<\/span><\/p>\n
Obviously, our primary focus still must be public safety. If you commit a serious crime, we have a bed for you, Whitmire said. But I think we are at a time where, when we have such a tight budget, (that) we have an opportunity to look at how we operate our criminal justice system and take the next step to a more efficient and better system.<\/span><\/p>\n
Senate Finance Committee Chair Jane Nelson, R-Flower Mound, echoed the sentiment. Her orders to Whitmire and Sen. Charles Schwertner, a Georgetown Republican who heads a work group looking to pare down correctional health care costs: Look at everything.<\/span><\/p>\n
In the House, members of the budget-writing Appropriations Committee appear to be on the same page. At a Monday hearing where Collier discussed the agency\u2019s budget needs for the next two years, White and other lawmakers said they are intent on finding new efficiencies for the nation\u2019s largest state prison system.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n
February, 2017<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n
RUMORS:<\/strong><\/p>\n
Once again, the rumor-mongers of TDCJ are waging their campaign that the Legislature has changed a law.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Once again, I am informing the inmate population: The Texas Legislature does meet this year, but no one will know whether there will be any new laws affecting the inmate population until at least June 2017. Just because a Bill (a suggestion by one of the Legislatures for a new law) is submitted does not mean the Bill will become law. There is a procedure for a Bill to become law and it is time consuming. Once a Bill is submitted by either a State Legislature or State Senator the Bill is assigned to a committee. Most Bills dealing with criminal matters must be submitted to the Criminal Justice Committee or Corrections Committee. There must be a vote of the majority of the Committee Members to move the Bill out of the Committee to the floor of the State Legislature. Once the Bill has been submitted to the floor it must pass both houses (the Senate and the House) by a majority of the Members. Then the Bill is sent to the Governor of the State of Texas. He must sign the Legislation within 90-days or it automatically dies and is not law. Therefore, I will not know until June 2017 if any of the Bills will become law.<\/p>\n
(1)<\/strong> Rumor: Reduction in one-half law for 3g offenders before eligible for parole. FALSE<\/u>. There has been no change in the law affecting 3g offenders. 3g offenders still must serve one-half of their sentence before they are eligible for parole. As of the date of this letter there has not been any Bill submitted to either the Criminal Justice Committee or Corrections Committee concerning this issue. Should you hear a rumor otherwise indicating there has been a reduction in the one-half rule, know it is FALSE<\/u>. In fact, the Legislature keeps ADDING new crimes requiring inmates to serve a minimum of one-half of their sentence. As previously indicated in my last newsletter, the Legislature is now adding crimes where NO parole will be available and inmates must serve every day of their sentence. When I began representing inmates before the Board around 30-years ago, there were only Aggravated Assault, Murder, Aggravated Kidnaping, Aggravated Sexual Assault, Aggravated Robbery and Aggravated Sexual Assault of a Child convictions that an inmate would have to serve one-half of their sentence on before becoming eligible for parole. Now there are approximately 15 more crimes in addition to the original 5 crimes that require an inmate to serve one-half of their sentence before becoming eligible for parole.<\/p>\n
(2)<\/strong> Rumor: If you are an undocumented immigrant and you are in prison, the Parole Board will release you and send you back to your country of origin because Donald Trump plans to start deporting immigrants with criminal records. FALSE<\/u>! This has been a rumor for over 20-years and it has not occurred yet. This path has always been opposed by the Board Members who disagree with releasing convicts before they have proven they will get their lives together and stop committing crimes whether in the United States or their country of origin, especially if the Board Members believe the inmate will be deported and then return here to commit new crimes.<\/p>\n
SCAMS<\/strong>:<\/p>\n
(1)<\/strong> A very realistic document is circulating through the prison system from the Department of Assistance and Rehabilitation Program. It claims you have 30-days from the date of your release to receive $1,200 toward the down-payment on a work vehicle, $400 for casual clothes and shoes, $500 for tools and $368 for every year you served in prison. All this information is available in a \u201chand-book\u201d that you can purchase for the nominal fee of $53 (amount varies) and then there is the name and address of who to send your money to in order to acquire this wonderful book full of information allowing you to receive money. Please DO NOT<\/u> fall for this scam. This scam has been circulating through the prison system for over 10-years that I know of and not one person has ever received a penny from purchasing this $53 book.<\/p>\n
(2)<\/strong> Once again there is a letter circulating through the system inviting inmates to join a \u201cprogram\u201d to be represented by the \u201claw firm\u201d in writ of habeas corpus matters for the sum of $150. Please be advised this is nothing but a scam. The filing fee to file a writ of habeas corpus is at least $150. Therefore, how is this \u201claw firm\u201d able to pay its lawyers, secretaries, West Law Computer lease, rent and other expenses out of thin air or maybe the Tooth Fairy<\/em> has been leaving money under their pillow to allow the firm and its employees to live and operate on. BEWARE of this scam.<\/p>\n
PAROLE BOARD <\/strong>INFORMATION:<\/strong><\/p>\n
The following are the 2016 denial rates by Parole Board Members:<\/p>\n
Board Member David Gutierrez of the Gatesville Board is the head of the Parole Board and only votes in limited situations, therefore he is not listed as his denial rate is based on his total vote on approximately 500 inmate files when the average Member votes 2,200 files. For those who have followed my newsletters over the years, I have always pointed out that the Angleton Board has maintained the highest release rate among the various Parole Boards. This is no longer true as there is now a new Board with a higher release rate than Angleton.<\/p>\n
Amarillo Board<\/strong><\/p>\n
James W. LaFavers\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 53.0%<\/p>\n
Marsha Moberley\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 61.2%<\/p>\n
Raymond Gonzalez \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a065.8%\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Overall Denial Rate\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 60.0%<\/p>\n
Angleton Board<\/strong><\/p>\n
Cynthia Tauss\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 64.3%<\/p>\n
Lynn Ruzicka\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 66.7%<\/p>\n
Ira Evans \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a076.0% \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Overall Denial Rate\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 69.0%<\/p>\n
Austin Board<\/strong><\/p>\n
Ed Robertson\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 46.5%<\/p>\n
Troy Fox\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 63.9%<\/p>\n
Elvis Hightower \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 63.6% \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Overall Denial Rate\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 58.0%<\/p>\n
Gatesville Board<\/strong><\/p>\n
Lee Ann Massingill\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 59.2%<\/p>\n
Roel Tejada \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 59.3%\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Overall Denial Rate\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 59.2%<\/p>\n
Huntsville Board<\/strong><\/p>\n
Fred Rangel \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 66.6%<\/p>\n
Wanda Saliagas \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 76.7%<\/p>\n
Roy Garcia \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 72.8%\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Overall Denial Rate\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 72.0%<\/p>\n
Palestine Board<\/strong><\/p>\n
Michelle Skyrme\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 68.5%<\/p>\n
James Kiel \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a068.7%<\/p>\n
James Hensarling \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 61.9%\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Overall Denial Rate\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 63.3%<\/p>\n
San Antonio Board<\/strong><\/p>\n
Fred Solis\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 59.9%<\/p>\n
Charles Speier \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 56.0%<\/p>\n
Anthony Ramirez \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 70.7%\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Overall Denial Rate\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 62.2%<\/p>\n
***MY ATTORNEY REPRESENTATION & WHY I MUST BE HIRED A LONG TIME BEFORE THE ELIGIBILITY DATE:*** <\/strong>Every inmate is eventually going to be reviewed by the Board. If you want to hire me, I must have time to perform my job. You need to hire me before your file is in review. Under Board rules the Parole Board can and often does receive an inmate\u2019s file 60-days prior to the Parole Eligibility date (Parole Eligibility date is not your hearing date, it is the date you become eligible for parole review) and upon receiving the file, the parole panel can vote the inmate\u2019s case. A parole package needs to be submitted prior to that date. I do not prepare a three-page form letter (taking the last client\u2019s name out and inserting a new client\u2019s name in as some \u201cParole Attorneys\u201d do). I need time to investigate, review the evidence gathered, evaluate that evidence and prepare a parole package which can be as much as 30 to 40 pages. Then, I must request an Attorney Appearance date and prepare for the presentation of my arguments to the Parole Member. Therefore, waiting to hire me only a few months prior to the eligibility date is not a sufficient time frame for me to do the job needed to convince the Board to release you to parole.<\/p>\n
May, 2016<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n
House Bill 1914 and Parole Board Policy May 2016:<\/h3>\n
There is now some good news to report. In 2015 the Board implemented procedures authorizing the Board Members to set a next review date of either 5,7, or 10 years in the future for those cases that were denied parole…<\/p>\n
Numerous inmates refuse to believe my last newsletter was correct about House Bill 1914. I received many telephone calls from anguished mothers, fathers, girlfriends, and other loved ones who have discovered their family member will not be seen by the parole board for at least 5 years and in some situations I have received telephone calls were they were denied parole and received a 10 year set-off. Once the parole board has made their decision there is no appeal. The Parole Board is applying House Bill 1914 retroactively to all capital life sentences and Aggravated Sexual Assault cases.<\/p>\n
There is now some good news to report. In 2015 the Board implemented procedures authorizing the Board Members to set a next review date of either 5,7, or 10 years in the future for those cases that were denied parole. The Board began applying those set offs retroactively.\u00a0\u00a0 On April 20, 2016 the Parole Board met for the Board\u2019s quarterly meeting and the Board voted to include the option of a 3 year set off in addition to the previously imposed 5, 7, and 10 year set off options in HB-1941 cases. Now the Board Members can give a 3, 5, 7, or 10 year set off should the Board Members deny parole on a capital life case or an Aggravated Sexual Assault case.<\/p>\n
March, 2016<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n
TIME CALCULATIONS FOR FIRST PAROLE REVIEW AS OF SEPTEMBER 2015:<\/strong><\/p>\n
As I have often written in my newsletters the Texas Legislature only meets every 2-years. The Texas Legislature will not meet again until 2017. The following eligibility for release chart is based on laws currently in effect in 2016.<\/p>\n
A person being held in county jail or custody will receive credit for his\/her time in custody toward his\/her parole eligibility date. For example. . . an inmate has been in custody for 6-months in a county facility prior to being sentenced to a 10-year sentence. The inmate would be eligible for parole (if the case is not a 3g offense) in 1-year 2-months and 8-days. The 6-months should be subtracted from the 1-year and 2-months parole eligibility date, leaving a parole eligibility date of approximately 8-months from the date of sentencing.<\/strong><\/p>\n
The following is a parole and discretionary mandatory supervision eligibility chart, remember the parole board presently is placing inmates into parole review six-months in advance of these calculated times and the parole board is presently voting cases as early as three-months before the parole eligibility date, in other words you need to hire me well in advance of the computed parole eligibility date:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
PAROLE<\/td>\n DISCRETIONARY MANDATORY<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Yrs.<\/td>\n 3g Offenses<\/td>\n All Other Offenses<\/td>\n 3g\/508.149 Offenses<\/td>\n All Other Offenses<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1<\/td>\n N\/A<\/td>\n 1 mos 13 days<\/td>\n N\/A<\/td>\n 5 mos 21 days<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2<\/td>\n N\/A<\/td>\n 2 mos 25 days<\/td>\n N\/A<\/td>\n 11 mos 8 days<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3<\/td>\n 2 yrs<\/td>\n 4 mos 8 days<\/td>\n N\/A<\/td>\n 1 yr 5 mos 2 days<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4<\/td>\n 2 yrs<\/td>\n 5 mos 21 days<\/td>\n N\/A<\/td>\n 1 yr 10 mos 22 days<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
5<\/td>\n 2 yrs 6 mos<\/td>\n 7 mos 3 days<\/td>\n N\/A<\/td>\n 2 yrs 4 mos 12 days<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
6<\/td>\n 3 yrs<\/td>\n 8 mos 15 days<\/td>\n N\/A<\/td>\n 2 yrs 10 mos 3 days<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
7<\/td>\n 3 yrs 6 mos<\/td>\n 10 mos 0 days<\/td>\n N\/A<\/td>\n 3 yrs 3 mos 20 days<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
8<\/td>\n 4 yrs<\/td>\n 11 mos 8 days<\/td>\n N\/A<\/td>\n 3 yrs 9 mos 16 days<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
9<\/td>\n 4 yrs 6 mos<\/td>\n 1 yr 0 mos 24 days<\/td>\n N\/A<\/td>\n 7 yrs 3 mos 4 days<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
10<\/td>\n 5 yrs<\/td>\n I yr 2 mos 8 days<\/td>\n N\/A<\/td>\n 4 yrs 8 mos 24 days<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
11<\/td>\n 5 yrs 6 mos<\/td>\n 1 yr 9 mos 9 days<\/td>\n N\/A<\/td>\n 6 yrs 1 mos 6 days<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
15<\/td>\n 7 yrs 6 mos<\/td>\n 2 yr 1 mos 20 days<\/td>\n N\/A<\/td>\n 7 yrs 1 mos 6 days<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
20<\/td>\n 10 yrs<\/td>\n 2 yrs 4 mos 12 days<\/td>\n N\/A<\/td>\n 9 yrs 5 mos 18 days<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
25<\/td>\n 12 yrs 6 mos<\/td>\n 2 yrs 11 mos 15 days<\/td>\n N\/A<\/td>\n 11 yrs 10 mos<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
30<\/td>\n 15 yrs<\/td>\n 3 yrs 6 mos 18 days<\/td>\n N\/A<\/td>\n 14 yrs 2 mos 12 days<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
35<\/td>\n 17 yrs 6 mos<\/td>\n 4 yrs 1 mos 21 days<\/td>\n N\/A<\/td>\n 16 yr 6 mos 24 days<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
40<\/td>\n 20 yrs<\/td>\n 4 yrs 9 mos<\/td>\n N\/A<\/td>\n 18 yr 11 mos 6 days<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
45<\/td>\n 22 yrs 6 mos<\/td>\n 5 yrs 4 mos 3 days<\/td>\n N\/A<\/td>\n 21 yrs 3 mos 18 days<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
50<\/td>\n 25 yrs<\/td>\n 5 yrs 11 mos 8 days<\/td>\n N\/A<\/td>\n 23 yrs 8 mos<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
55<\/td>\n 27 yrs 6 mos<\/td>\n 6 yrs 6 mos 11 days<\/td>\n N\/A<\/td>\n 26 yrs 12 days<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
60<\/td>\n 30 yrs<\/td>\n 7 yrs 1 mos 15 days<\/td>\n N\/A<\/td>\n 28 yrs 4 mos 24 days<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
LIFE<\/td>\n 30 yrs<\/td>\n 7 yrs 1 mos 15 days<\/td>\n N\/A<\/td>\n N\/A<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n
Parole eligibility is based on calendar time. The inmates convicted of 3g offenses are not eligible for mandatory supervision. Any 3g offense committed on or after September 1, 1993 requires an inmate to serve a minimum of one-half of the total sentence to become parole eligible.<\/p>\n
The following is the current listing of 3g offenses for 2016:<\/p>\n
\n
Aggravated Assault – Mandatory minimum or 2-years any time over two years is computed at \u00bd rule<\/li>\n
Aggravated Sexual Assault<\/li>\n
Aggravated Kidnapping<\/li>\n
Aggravated Robbery<\/li>\n
Use of a Child to Commit Drug Offense<\/li>\n
1^{st<\/sup> Degree Felony Injury of a Child Resulting In Serious Bodily Injury<\/li>\n}
Sexual Performance By a Child<\/li>\n
1^{st<\/sup> Degree Criminal Solicitation<\/li>\n}
Compelling Prostitution<\/li>\n
Trafficking Of Persons<\/li>\n
1^{st<\/sup> Degree Burglary Of habitation With Intent To Commit Certain Sexual Offenses<\/li>\n}
Affirmative Finding Of Deadly Weapon<\/li>\n
Continuous Trafficking of Persons<\/li>\n
Engaging in Organized Criminal Activity<\/li>\n
Directing Activities of Criminal Street Gangs<\/li>\n
Indecency with Child-Contact<\/li>\n
Murder<\/li>\n
Sexual Assault of a Child<\/li>\n
Offenses with Affirmative Finding of Deadly Weapon<\/li>\n
Intoxicated Manslaughter<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Drug free zone offenses carry a unique parole eligibility requirement. If convicted of such a crime, an offender must serve five calendar years to become eligible. Consequently, if an offender is sentenced to five-years or less, he\/she is not eligible for parole or mandatory supervision.<\/p>\n
An inmate under sentence of death, serving a sentence of life imprisonment without parole, serving a sentence for and offense of Continuous Sexual Abuse of a Child is not eligible for release on parole.<\/p>\n
Aggravated Sexual Assault if the victim of the offense is younger than 6-years of age at the time of the offense and if the victim of the offense is younger than 14-years of age at the time of the offense and the actor commits the offense in a manner described.<\/p>\n
There are certain offenses where a life sentence carries unique initial parole eligible requirements by statute:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Capital Murder<\/td>\n 40 years actual time served<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
Aggravated Sexual Assault<\/p>\n
(two prior convictions 1 sex related)<\/td>\n
35 years actual time served<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Aggravated kidnapping with Intent to Abuse Sexually (two prior felony convictions sex related)<\/td>\n 35 years actual time served<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
Indecency with Child-Contact<\/p>\n
(two prior felony convictions 1 sex related)<\/td>\n
35 years actual time served<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
Burglary Habitation with intent to<\/p>\n
sexual assault or indecency with Child<\/p>\n
(two prior felony convictions 1 sex related)<\/td>\n
35 years actual time served<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n
HOUSE BILL 1914:<\/strong><\/p>\n
In the August 2015 newsletter I notified the prison population of House Bill 1914 changing the minimum set-off from 1-year to 5-years on certain crimes. I received numerous letters explaining the Parole Board could not apply this law retroactively. I am sorry to report the parole board is applying this law retroactively. Where previously a minimum set-off on a aggravated sexual assault or a life sentence would have been one-year with a maximum of 5-years the law is now a mandatory minimum 5-year set-off with a maximum of 10-years. My understanding of ex post facto is there must be a substantive change in the law. A set-off is not considered, under Texas Court of Criminal Appeal decisions, as a substantive change in the law; it is merely procedural.<\/p>\n
Numerous inmates refused to believe my last newsletter was correct about House Bill 1914. I am now receiving telephone calls from anguished mothers, fathers, girlfriends, and other loved ones who have now discovered their family member, in prison, will not be seen by the parole board for at least 5-years and in some situations I have received telephone calls where an inmate was denied parole and received a 10-year set-off. Once the parole board has made their decision there is no appeal. Steps may have been taken for those individuals before they received the set-offs, but unfortunately, once the set-off is received, no action is available.<\/p>\n
RUMORS: <\/strong><\/p>\n
(1)<\/strong>The Parole Board has a new policy of releasing all inmates convicted of possession of drug charges. This is NOT <\/strong> true. <\/strong>Inmates who have possession of drug convictions still must convince the Parole Board to release the inmate to parole.\u00a0\u00a0 (2)<\/strong>The legislature is reducing the penalty on possession of 5 grams or less. This is also NOT true<\/strong>. Remember my civic lesson from my last newsletter about the Texas Legislature. It only meets every two-years in odd number years. The next Texas Legislature does not meet until 2017, so any rumor that begins with the Legislature changed some law is false because the Legislature will not meet again until 2017.<\/p>\n
***MY ATTORNEY REPRESENTATION & WHY I MUST BE HIRED A LONG TIME BEFORE THE ELIGIBILITY DATE:*** <\/strong>Every inmate is eventually going to be reviewed by the Board. If you want to hire me, I must have time to perform my job. You should hire me before you go into to review. Under Board rules the Parole Board can and often does receive an inmates file 60-days prior to the Parole Eligibility date (Parole Eligibility date is not your hearing date, it is the date you become eligible for parole) and upon receiving the file, the parole panel can vote the inmates case. Any parole package needs to be submitted prior to that date. Since I do not do a three-page form letter (taking the last clients name out and inserting a new clients name in). I need time to investigate, review the evidence gathered, evaluate that evidence, prepare a parole package that can run 30 to 40 pages and then request an Attorney Appearance date and prepare for the presentation of my arguments to the Parole Member; therefore, waiting to hire me up until a few months prior to the eligibility date will not be sufficient time for me to do the job needed to convince the Board to release you to parole. If you believe a 3-page form letter will change the Parole Board\u2019s mind about who you are and what you have become, then you are sadly mistaken. If you are released after such a form letter is filed, you were more than likely going to be released anyway.<\/p>\n
TIME PAYMENT PLAN: <\/strong>If you decide to hire me and do so well in advance of your eligibility date, I can design a time payment plan for your family or loved ones, but I must be paid in full before I submit the parole package or request an appearance before the Parole Board, which is normally submitted 3-months prior to the parole review date. The time payment plan <\/strong>has been very helpful to many of my clients who have limited financial resources and thereby allowed them to hire me without causing them financial distress because they have hired me many months or even years in advance. If you wait until the last minute, the entire fee is going to be due immediately.<\/p>\n
February, 2016<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n
HOUSE BILL 1914:<\/strong><\/p>\n
In the August 2015 newsletter I notified the prison population of House Bill 1914 changing the minimum set-off from 1-year to 5-years on certain crimes. I received numerous letters explaining the Parole Board could not apply this law retroactively. I am sorry to report the parole board is applying this law retroactively. Where previously a minimum set-off on a aggravated sexual assault or a life sentence would have been one-year with a maximum of 5-years the law is now a mandatory minimum 5-year set-off with a maximum of 10-years. My understanding of ex post facto is there must be a substantive change in the law. A set-off is not considered, under Texas Court of Criminal Appeal decisions, as a substantive change in the law; it is merely procedural.<\/p>\n
Numerous inmates refused to believe my last newsletter was correct about House Bill 1914. I am now receiving telephone calls from anguished mothers, fathers, girlfriends, and other loved ones who have now discovered their family member, in prison, will not be seen by the parole board for at least 5-years and in some situations I have received telephone calls where an inmate was denied parole and received a 10-year set-off. Once the parole board has made their decision there is no appeal. Steps may have been taken for those individuals before they received the set-offs, but unfortunately, once the set-off is received, no action is available.<\/p>\n
RUMORS: <\/strong><\/p>\n
(1)<\/strong>The Parole Board has a new policy of releasing all inmates convicted of possession of drug charges. Inmates who have possession of drug convictions still must convince the Parole Board to release the inmate to parole. This is NOT ture. <\/strong> (2)<\/strong>The legislature is reducing the penalty on possession of 5 grams or less. This is also NOT true<\/strong>. Remember my civic lesson from my last newsletter about the Texas Legislature. It only meets every two-years in odd number years. The next Texas Legislature does not meet until 2017, so any rumor that begins with the Legislature changed some law is false until the Legislature meets again in 2017.<\/p>\n
November, 2015<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n
Federal Communication Commission Takes Steps Reducing Inmate Calling Rates:<\/strong><\/p>\n
On October 22, 2015 the Federal Communications Commission took steps to rein in the excessive rates and egregious fees on phone calls paid by inmates attempting to stay in touch with loved ones. The Federal Communication Commission cut rates for local and in-state long-distance inmate calling, and cut existing interstate long-distance calls. It also closed loopholes by barring most ad-on fees imposed by inmate calling services (ICS) providers, and set strict limits on the fees that remain. These actions build on reforms begun by the Federal Communication Commission in 2013, when it acted on a petition by grandmother from Washington for relief from the exorbitant rates she was paying to call her grandson in prison. The Order adopted by the Commission lowers the telephone rate to $.11 per minute for all local and long-distance calls from state and federal prisons, while providing tiered rates for jails to account for the higher cost of serving jail and smaller institutions.<\/p>\n
New caps reduce the average rate for the vast majority of inmate calls substantially from $2.96 to no more than $1.65 for 15 minute intrastate calls for most inmates and from $3.15 to no more than $1.65 for most 15-minute interstate calls. The recaps are as follows: (1) <\/strong>$.11cents\/minute for debit and prepaid calls in state or federal prisons (approximately 71% of inmates reside in state or federal prisons). (2) <\/strong>$.14 cents\/minute for debit and prepaid calls in jails with 1,000 or more inmates. (3)<\/strong> $.16 cents\/minute for debit and prepaid calls in jails with 350-999 inmates. (4)<\/strong> $.22cents\/minute for debit and prepaid calls in jails of up to 349 inmates. Rates for collect calls are slightly higher in the first year and will be phased down to these caps over a two-year transition period.<\/p>\n
Eliminates unnecessary fees by capping or banning burdensome ancillary service charges, which can add nearly 40% to the cost of a single call. The following ancillary service charges have been capped. Automated payment by phone or website is capped at $3.00, payment through a live agent is capped at $5.95, a paper bill fee is capped at $2.00, third-party financial transaction fees may be passed through with no mark-up allowed, prohibits all other ancillary service charges, mandatory taxes and regulatory fees can be passed through with no mark-up. Defines the term site commission<\/em> and makes a site commission<\/em> as a profit, not a cost of providing service, and cannot be passed through to the inmate.<\/p>\n
Thousand of Federal Inmates Being Released Early:<\/strong><\/p>\n
\u00a0About 6000 federal inmates whose drug sentences were reduced will begin the process of being released from custody beginning October 30, 2015. This is the result of a policy change made by the United States Sentencing Commission. The Justice Department has been preparing for the inmate release for the last year and a half, coordinating efforts with immigration, court, prison and probation officials. Approximately a 3^{rd<\/sup> of the 6000 inmates will be transferred to the United States Immigration and Custom Enforcement and eventually deported to their home countries. Of the remaining, approximately 4000 inmates, about 80% of those will be released from halfway houses or home confinement the other 20% will be returned to their families and loved ones straight from prison under the supervision of probation officers. Texas will receive the largest number of inmates affected by this policy change of approximately 600 and Florida will receive the second-largest with approximately 300.<\/p>\n}
I have received numerous letters and phone calls regarding the release of the federal prisoners. I\u2019ve had to explain to family members and write to inmates and inform them this release only affects federal inmates. The United States Sentencing Commission has no authority over TDCJ are the state of Texas. Only the parole board has the authority to release an inmate from custody after the inmate has served the minimum time in custody. There is no wholesale release of state inmates in Texas.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n
September, 2015<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n
NEW PAROLE BOARD MEMBERS:<\/strong><\/p>\n
David Gutierrez Board Member at the Gatesville Parole Board has been appointed to take over Ms. Resse Owens position as Presiding Officer of the Parole Board. Ms. Owens was not reappointed to the Board of Pardons and Paroles. Presently Mr. Gutierrez will remain at the Gatesville Parole Board as a voting member.<\/p>\n
The Angleton Parole Board has a new Parole Commissioner: Mr. Ira Evans has 18-years experience in Manufacturing and Technical Management in the private sector, joined Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles as an Institutional Parole Officer in 2002, was promoted to Board Analyst in 2010 prior to becoming a Parole Commissioner.<\/p>\n
The Gatesville Parole Board has two new Parole Commissioners: (1) Ms. Lee Ann Eck-Massingill has a Bachelor of Science in Criminology and Corrections and a Minor in Psychology form Sam Houston State University and has 25-years of Criminal Justice experience. (2) Mr. Roel Tejada has a Bachelor of Arts and a Master\u2019s of Justice Administration from St. Mary\u2019s University, has experience in both Juvenile and Adult systems with emphasis on Substance Abuse, Special Needs and Domestic Violence with over 13-years of Administrative and Supervisory experience.<\/p>\n
The Huntsville Board has a new Parole Commissioner: Ms. Wanda Saliagas has a Bachelor of Science in Social Rehabilitation and Social Services from Sam Houston State University with 9-years experience in social services and 26-years in criminal justice experience.<\/p>\n
The San Antonio Board has a new Board Member:\u00a0\u00a0 Mr. Fred Solis has a Master of Public Administration in Management, University of Texas San Antonio; Bachelor of Science, Wayland Baptist University, U.S. Army Command and General\u2019s Staff College; Texas Master Peace Officer. He is retired U.S. Army Colonel with 40-years of active and reserve duty. He is retired San Antonio Police Officer, Former Police Chief of Olmos Park, Texas, Former Bexar County Criminal District Attorney, White Collar Crimes Investigator, Criminal Justice Adjunct Professor at the University of the Incarnate Word.<\/p>\n
PAROLE BOARD POLICY CHANGE:<\/strong><\/p>\n
The Board of Pardons and Paroles approved the modification of the Approval\/Denial reasons provided by the parole panel when rendering a parole decision. The changes are to provide clear and concise reasons for the Approval or Denial of parole and are designed to eliminate any ambiguity that may have previously existed. The implementation will be forthcoming once the computer programming changes are complete.<\/p>\n
RUMORS: <\/strong><\/p>\n
(1) <\/strong>There was no Bill proposed decreasing the mandatory requirement of a person convicted of a 3g offense or any offense in which a weapon was used serving less than 50% of their sentence before they would be eligible for parole. When will people stop believing this rumor? I do not know, but I have been addressing this same rumor for over 10- years, but everyone wants to believe this law has changed. IT HAS NOT.<\/strong> (2) <\/strong>There is another rumor circulating that the Legislature is bringing back mandatory release rule and there will be no longer be discretionary mandatory release review. Inmates must be released when their work time, good time and actual time equals their sentence. This is also NOT true. <\/strong> (3) <\/strong>Again, the inmate rumor mill is still circulating the rumor there is a lawsuit that an inmate has won denying the parole board the ability to use the same reason for denial more than once. This rumor has been going around for some time and I have addressed about two-years ago. This is also NOT true<\/strong>. Remember my civic lesson from my last newsletter about the Texas Legislature. It only meets every two-years in odd number years. The next Texas Legislature does not meet until 2017, so any rumor that begins with the Legislature changed some law is false until the Legislature meets again in 2017.<\/p>\n
NEW LAWS:<\/strong><\/p>\n
There was a fleeting moment of hope that the liberals and conservatives could come together and reform the criminal justice system. Those hopes evaporated like a drop of rain on a hot August day in Texas. This Legislature failed to pass legislation that would lower penalties for nonviolent offenders. Is there any wonder why the Department of Criminal Justice general revenue fund grew by nearly a half billion dollars for the next biennium? This Legislature didn\u2019t pass a law treating 17-year-olds as juveniles rather than adults. It doesn\u2019t seem to bother the conservative legislatures to send teenagers into an adult criminal justice system that has hardened criminals residing in it. This Legislature even passed up an easy one. There was a bill submitted that would stop asking individuals if they have ever been convicted of a felony or had a criminal history on-the-job application. By removing this question on the employment form, an individual would at least get his\/her foot in the door for a job interview instead of being summarily denied. This proposed law never made it out of committee.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n
Should any inmate or parolee who is in a sex-offender treatment course be asked to discuss \u201cuncharged but potentially possible criminal events\u201d the person may invoke his Fifth Amendment Right. He cannot be discharged or revoked for asserting his Constitutional Right. However, this right is not applicable to offenses for which there is already a final conviction or and adjudication and he would be expected to discuss these convictions and adjudications during the course of the program or risk being removed.<\/p>\n
HB-189<\/strong>:This law eliminated the statute of limitation for the offenses of sexual assault and aggravated sexual assault and increases the penalty of other sexual crimes. (See the above explanation on your rights in treatment or interviews). This law takes effect September 2015.<\/p>\n
HB-333:<\/strong> A defendant who has successfully completed a state jail felony community supervision can, on a written motion, upon completing 2\/3 of original supervision request the convicting court to discharge the defendant and amend the record of conviction to reflect a conviction for a Class A misdemeanor. This law goes into effect September 1, 2015.<\/p>\n
HB-710:<\/strong> Parole Division may issue a summons instead of a warrant on a person charged with violating a condition of parole so long as the individual is not on intensive supervision, an absconder, or deemed a threat to the public safety and is charged an administrative violation, a class B or C misdemeanor. This Bill goes into effect September 1, 2015.<\/p>\n
HB- 904: <\/strong>This deals with when a convicted individual has been convicted of a felony and is ineligible for release on bail pending appeal, the individual will be transferred to TDCJ. This Act takes effect September 1, 2015.<\/p>\n
***HB-1083: <\/strong>requires TDCJ prior to confining an inmate to segregation to have the inmate evaluated by a medical or mental health care professional and a mental health assessment must be performed prior to placing the in administrative segregation. TDCJ may not confine an inmate if the assessment performed indicates that the type of confinement is not appropriate for the inmates medical or mental health. This law goes into effect September 1, 2015.<\/p>\n
***HB-1941: <\/strong>Allows the Parole Board the option to give up to a ten-year set- off between parole reviews for those inmates convicted of Capital Murder (life sentence) or aggravated sex cases. These cases will be voted by all 7 Board members and will require 5 favorable votes to receive parole. This law goes into effect September 1, 2015.<\/p>\n
HB-2189:<\/strong> This requires TDCJ to establish and maintain a program for intellectually disabled or borderline intellectual functioning inmates which provides a safe environment and has specialized programs and treatment for such individuals. This goes into effect September 1, 2015.<\/p>\n
SB-236: <\/strong>This law increases the punishment range on certain controlled substances offenses committed in a drug-free zone. This goes into effect September 1, 2015.<\/p>\n
SB-487: <\/strong>Allows a convicted person to submit to the convicting court a motion for forensic DNA testing of evidence where there is a reasonable likelihood of biological material existing. This law goes into effect September 1, 2015.<\/p>\n
***SB-578: <\/strong>TDCJ shall identify organizations that provide reentry and reintegration resources and shall collaborate with those organizations to make these resources available to all inmates. This takes effect September 1, 2015.<\/p>\n
SB-589: <\/strong>Allows inmates serving a state jail conviction to receive credit against the defendants sentence up to 1\/5th of the sentence if the defendant participated in educational, vocational, treatment, or work programs while confined. This law goes into effect September 1, 2015.<\/p>\n
SB -662: <\/strong>The convicting court shall appoint an attorney to an indigent applicant for writ of habeas corpus whose sentence has been suspended, reduced to a lesser offense, or the courts have found a law to be unconstitutional. This takes effect September 1, 2015.<\/p>\n
SB-746:<\/strong> This very extensive law sets up the procedure for the civil commitment of those person who have been found guilty of a sexually predatory act, sexually violent offense and set forth the definitions of such acts. This law takes effect September 1, 2015.<\/p>\n
***SB-790:<\/strong> A parolee charged with committing an administrative violation of release, a new misdemeanor offense and not a violation of family violence or DWI shall receive a bond from a magistrate of the county in which the individual is confined if there is a showing the parolee is not an absconder or a threat to public safety. This law goes into effect September 1, 2015.<\/p>\n
SB-1326:<\/strong> This law sets forth the maximum cumulative period a defendant can be kept in custody to determine his competency to stand trial. This law goes into effect September 1, 2015.<\/p>\n
February, 2015<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n
Rumors:<\/strong><\/p>\n
(1) It has come to my attention there is a vicious rumor circulating throughout the prison system that I have been blackballed<\/em> by the parole boards in every region and that anyone who hires me will automatically be denied parole. FALSE: I am in good standing with all the parole boards and their members and continue to be heard by them arguing in my clients\u2019 behalf, as I have for over 20-years successfully. Last week alone, every client I argued for was granted parole. So, I reiterate, there is no truth to this rumor.<\/p>\n
(2) President Barack Obama and Congress will be working to reduce the prison population. FALSE: While there is ongoing discussions in Washington regarding criminal justice reform, there have been no bills proposed as of the date of this letter. Also, any reform on the federal level will only affect federal prisons.<\/p>\n
(3) Should a close relative die you can petition the Parole Board for a special review of your previous denial. FALSE: Should a death occur, an inmate can petition the Warden for a furlough to attend the funeral.<\/p>\n
(4) Any rumor starting with the Texas Legislature has changed the law… FALSE: No laws have been passed by the Legislature in the two weeks the Legislature has been in session beginning January 2015.<\/p>\n
New Laws:<\/strong><\/p>\n
A very scarey decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the 11^{th<\/sup> Circuit in United States of America v. Marvin Reese<\/em> came out January 5, 2015. During a hearing to revoke Mr. Reese\u2019s supervised release (federal probation), the question of whether the drugs found on him were illegal drugs was elicited by the United States Attorney through the testimony of a police officer instead of the lab technician who performed the test. The Court states: We begin with the proposition that the revocation of parole is not part of a criminal prosecution and thus the full panoply of rights due a defendant in a criminal proceeding does not apply to parole revocations.<\/em> Should this decision remain, a police officer could testify in a state parole revocation hearing that the substance found on a parolee was an illegal substance or the officer could testify the girlfriend told the officer the parolee hit or threatened to harm her and the Parole Board could accept this as evidence of a parole violation. The only saving fact is an implied understanding that if Mr. Reese had issued a subpoena and objected to the testimony at the hearing, then there may have been a different outcome. That is why I always issue subpoenas and object at parole revocation hearings to protect my client. I have been fortunate to have not lost a parole revocation at a revocation hearing in 7-8 years.<\/p>\n}
PAROLE DECISIONS BY BOARD MEMBERS AND COMMISSIONERS FOR THE YEAR 2014<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
PAROLE BOARD<\/strong><\/td>\n BOARD MEMBER<\/strong><\/td>\n APPROVAL RATE<\/strong><\/td>\n DENIAL RATE<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Amarillo<\/td>\n James LaFavers<\/td>\n 36.1%<\/td>\n 63.9%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Amarillo<\/td>\n Marsha Moberley<\/td>\n 35.0%<\/td>\n 65.0%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Amarillo<\/td>\n Charles A. Shipman<\/td>\n 29.4%<\/td>\n 70.6%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Angleton<\/td>\n Cynthia Tauss<\/td>\n 39.7%<\/td>\n 60.3%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Angleton<\/td>\n Lynn Ruzicka<\/td>\n 40.7%<\/td>\n 59.3%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Austin<\/td>\n Troy Fox<\/td>\n 44.6%<\/td>\n 55.4%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Austin<\/td>\n Elvis Hightower<\/td>\n 44.3%<\/td>\n 55.7%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Gatesville<\/td>\n David Gutierrez<\/td>\n 38.5%<\/td>\n 61.5%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Gatesville<\/td>\n Lee Ann Eck-Massingill<\/td>\n 30.7%<\/td>\n 69.3%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Gatesville<\/td>\n Roel Tejada<\/td>\n 31.0%<\/td>\n 69.0%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Huntsville<\/td>\n Rissie Owens<\/td>\n 88.7%<\/td>\n 11.3%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Huntsville<\/td>\n Fred Rangel<\/td>\n 42.8%<\/td>\n 57.2%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Huntsville<\/td>\n Roy A. (Tony) Garcia<\/td>\n 36.7%<\/td>\n 63.3%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Palestine<\/td>\n Michelle Skyrme<\/td>\n 32.8%<\/td>\n 67.2%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Palestine<\/td>\n James Paul Kiel, Jr.<\/td>\n 30.0%<\/td>\n 70.0%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Palestine<\/td>\n James A. Hensarling<\/td>\n 33.4%<\/td>\n 66.6%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
San Antonio<\/td>\n Juanita Gonzalez<\/td>\n 37.8%<\/td>\n 62.2%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
San Antonio<\/td>\n Charles C. Speier<\/td>\n 34.3%<\/td>\n 65.7%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
San Antonio<\/td>\n Anthony Ramirez<\/td>\n 28.8%<\/td>\n 71.2%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
AVERAGE TOTAL<\/strong><\/td>\n \u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n 33.9%<\/strong><\/td>\n 66.1%<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n
The methodology I used in calculating the total average was to take out the percentage for Rissie Owens because as head of the Parole Board she only voted on approximately 450 cases in the year to date versus most Parole Board Members who voted in excess of 3500 cases year to date. I believe the probability of any inmate of being voted on by Ms. Owens would be a statistical anomaly and the greater probability of a vote by the other members would be more probable.<\/p>\n
Of Interest\u00a0:<\/strong><\/p>\n
I received a phone call from Juanita Gonzalez last week informing me she will be retiring from the San Antonio Parole Board as soon as the Governor appoints an individual to take her place. I will miss arguing cases to her. While she may not have always agreed with my assessment of why my client deserved parole, she always listened and asked very informed questions about my client. That type of individual is always needed on the parole board. This will now make three appointments the new Governor will have to make to fill the existing vacancies at the Angleton Board, Huntsville Board and now Juanita Gonzalez\u2019s position at San Antonio Board.<\/p>\n
(1) Mr. Rangel who was a Parole Board Commissioner at the Angleton Board has been moved to the Huntsville Board to assist Mr. Garcia in voting parole cases.<\/p>\n
(2) For those inmates with Hepatitis C, there has been a major breakthrough in medicine with the release of Sovaldi from Gilead Sciences Company. This drug can cure Hepatitis C within weeks or months of taking the pill once a day for up to 12-weeks. The bad news is it costs $1,000.00 per pill for a total cost of curing the disease of approximately $84,000.00 for the treatment. Prisons across the country will be facing a dilemma. Treating these inmates could make a big dent in the Hepatitis C epidemic, but finding the money to do it will be another story.<\/p>\n
(3) The sole Judge Michael Seiler who hears civil commitment of sex-offenders has come under fire for remarks he made about the offenders who face him in court as psychopaths<\/em> or once suggesting treating the sex-offender with castration from the neck up. To date there have been 16 Motion to Recuse Judge Seiler from hearing these types of cases and 8 have been granted by three different judges. In at least seven cases, appellate courts have sided with the defense attorney and reversed Judge Seiler\u2019s decision to civilly commit defendants.<\/p>\n
(4) For the first time, Texas Appellate courts have overturned the convictions of two teenagers who were certified by the juvenile courts to be an adult. They were subsequently tried as adults and sent to TDCJ. For over a quarter century, not a single juvenile certification had been successfully challenged until January of this year. Based on the opinions in the two cases, the Appellate courts will now require sufficient evidence as to why the youth in question should stand trial as an adult.<\/p>\n
Attorneys in Office:<\/strong><\/p>\n
Greg Tsioros <\/strong>is a criminal defense attorney who handles all forms of criminal defense cases and Johnny P. Papantonakis<\/strong> is a criminal defense attorney who handles cases in both federal and state courts and is fluent in Spanish. They are both now accepting parole cases after having worked with me to understand the complexity of parole in Texas. Johnny will be assisting me in representing inmates as well as family members who speak Spanish and need help convincing the Board to release there loved one to parole.<\/p>\n
Parole Representation:<\/strong><\/p>\n
I continue to be contacted by family members requesting my help after having spent their hard earned money on parole representation by other attorneys and receiving a meager 3-page letter begging the Board to release the inmate with a few support letters attached and told that is a parole package. Unfortunately, if that is what people have fallen prey to for around $2,000.00, then money has been wasted as it will have very little if any impact on the Board\u2019s decision. If an inmate receives parole after such a package has been filed, it is most likely the inmate would have been released without the loss of $2,000.00 or the waste of paper the so-called Parole Package<\/em> was written on. The simple fact is, the Parole Board is looking for evidence an inmate deserves to be released. The only way I know how to get this type of evidence is to gather information and documentation from the various agencies, the inmate, the inmate\u2019s family and friends, and others, review and evaluate that information, and attempt to find mitigating proof the crime my client was charged with was not as bad as the Parole Members may have perceived when they read the IPO summary, or that my client is no longer the same person who committed the act and was sent to prison. To prepare an informative Parole Package (usually some 30 or 40 pages long) and then prepare a persuasive argument to the Parole Board, I have to clearly reflect that my client has gotten his\/her life together so the Parole Board feels sure he\/she will not receive a telephone call from some reporter demanding to know why that inmate was released instead of made to serve out the entire sentence because now the released inmate has committed a horrible new crime. Remember, the easy answer for the Board is to say NO to a request for parole, instead of granting it. If you really believe a 3-page parole package will convince the Board to grant you parole, simply prepare it yourself instead of wasting money on nonproductive representation.<\/p>\n
\n
May, 2014<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n
\n
Parole system and TDCJ update:<\/b><\/p>\n
For decades, there have been 18 Parole Board Members in the state of Texas.\u00a0 In my last letter I notified my clients that the Legislature had appropriated funds for a new Parole Board Office in Austin, Texas.\u00a0 I verified this during a discussion with Ms. Rissie Owens who is the Presiding Officer of the Parole Board.\u00a0 It took some time for the Governor to appoint the two new commissioners, but as of the date of this letter there is a new Parole Board office in Austin consisting of Rissie Owens, Troy G. Fox and Elvis Hightower.\u00a0 Troy G. Fox was previously a commissioner at the Gatesville Board. His education consists of a Bachelor of Science in Criminology and Corrections from Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, Texas.<\/p>\n
His background consists of over 35-years experience in corrections and criminal justice field in positions ranging from probation officer to various management positions with TDCJ-Parole Division and the Board of Pardons and Paroles.\u00a0 Mr. Elvis Hightower was also relocated from the Gatesville Board to the new Austin Board Office. His education consists of a Bachelors Degree from Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, Texas. His background consists of 11-years experience as a prison warden.<\/p>\n
The Governor then appointed two new Parole Board Commissioners to the Gatesville Board:\u00a0 Ms. Lee Ann Eck-Massingill, who has a Bachelor of Science in Criminology and Corrections and a Minor in Psychology from Sam Houston State University in Huntsville, Texas. Her background consists of 25-years in the criminal justice arena.\u00a0 Also appointed to the Gatesville Board is Mr. Roel Tejada who has a Bachelor of Arts and a Master of Justice Administration from St. Mary\u2019s University, San Antonio, Texas. His background consists of criminal justice experience in both juvenile and adult systems with an emphasis on Substance Abuse, Special Needs and Domestic Violence.<\/p>\n
Due to the creation of the new Austin Parole Board Office, there will probably be a realignment of the various regions and units with some being placed under the new board and other units reassigned to other board offices.\u00a0 As of the date of this letter, there is no official designation as to what units will be placed under the Austin Parole Board. I anticipate the realignment will occur mainly from those units under the San Antonio Parole Board, Gatesville Parole Board, possibly the Huntsville Parole Board and maybe a few units from the Angleton Parole Board; however, there could be a complete realignment throughout the entire system.\u00a0 Once I have received an official chart indicating what units will be placed under what parole boards I will post it on my website and it will probably be in my next letter that will go out sometime this summer.\u00a0 If you are interested in knowing what units will be voted by what parole board, I suggest you periodically check my web page. Once I have placed this information on my web page it can printed out and sent to any inmate so he\/she can be updated as to what parole board will be assigned to what units.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
The overall release rate has not changed drastically since my last letter.\u00a0 As of March 2014 the overall release rate is 35.67% which means that approximately 65% of inmates are being denied parole at present. The new Parole Board Members\u2019 voting records have not been calculated as of the posted March 2014 statistics I recently received.\u00a0 I anticipate it will be approximately 3 or 4 months before there is any new statistical information regarding how the new Parole Board Members are voting.\u00a0 Upon receiving this information it will also be placed on my web page and be in my next letter. Generally, when a new Parole Board Member begins voting, they have a tendency to vote very conservatively. Should that occur, it will probably affect the Gatesville Board\u2019s statistics since Mr. Fox and Mr. Hightower were there for a number of years.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
June, 2023 RUMORS:\u00a0 The Release Fairy Revisited: There is a certain segment of the inmate population that still believes in the Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny, Santa Claus and the Texas Legislature. We have consistently explained there has not been a change in the law regarding 3g offenses or those other offenses that are not listed Read More<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":4,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-366","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/texasparole.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/366","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/texasparole.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/texasparole.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/texasparole.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/texasparole.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=366"}],"version-history":[{"count":80,"href":"https:\/\/texasparole.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/366\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1913,"href":"https:\/\/texasparole.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/366\/revisions\/1913"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/texasparole.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=366"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}