EX PARTE GEORGE ALVIN JONES (other)

Annotate this Case
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

 

NO. WR-70,221-02

EX PARTE GEORGE ALVIN JONES, Applicant

 

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 03-07-04926-CR(2) IN THE 410TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

FROM MONTGOMERY COUNTY

Per curiam. 
O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant pleaded guilty to deadly conduct and originally received five years' deferred adjudication community supervision. His guilt was later adjudicated, and he was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment.

On July 16, 2008, this Court denied Applicant's first 11.07 writ of habeas corpus, which raised substantive challenges to the merits of this conviction. On April 13, 2009, Applicant filed this, his second writ of habeas corpus, in the trial court. In this writ, Applicant raises two claims pertaining to time credit. The trial court has entered findings of fact and conclusions of law, recommending that relief be granted in part and denied in part. (1)

However, because Applicant's time credit claims were available and could have been raised in his first writ of habeas corpus, this Court may not consider the merits of the instant application or grant relief on the instant application. Ex parte Whiteside, 12 S.W.3d 819, 821 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). Therefore, this writ is dismissed as a subsequent application pursuant to Article 11.07 4.

Filed: December 9, 2009

Do not publish

1. The trial court recommends that Applicant be granted credit for five days of time he spent in jail prior to his release to deferred adjudication community supervision. Because this is pre-sentencing jail time, the trial court may correct Applicant's credit by the entry of a judgment nunc pro tunc. Ex parte Ybarra, 149 S.W.3d 147, 148-149 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004).

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.