Defendants contemplating a plea bargain deal for prison time need to know how much time they will actually serve before being eligible for parole. One key component to understanding your parole eligibility calculation is the “good time credits” awarded by TDCJ. When doing ball park eligibility calculations, family members sometimes rely on the general rule of thumb that if the inmate doesn’t get in trouble, he gets one day of good time credit for each “calendar” day he serves (Inmates normally refer to calendar as “flat time”).

But the actual rules are more complicated. Although you certainly don’t need to understand every nuance in the law, a general grasp of what good time you can earn (and what can be taken away) is important when planning for a post-prison future.

The first thing to know is that the statutory framework for awarding good time is hard to understand if you don’t already have knowledge of how TDCJ classification works. For anyone sentenced on or after September 1, 1987 (referred to awkwardly in the system as “70th Legislature offenders”) you earn a certain amount of days of good conduct time per 30 days calendar time served. The specific number of days you can earn depends on your classification. For example, if you’re designated as “Line CLass I” you can earn a maximum of 20 days per 30-day period. In addition, the statue authorizes TDCJ to award a “Line Class 1” inmate 15 days of work time credit. So, if you start out classified as Line Class 1, get a job and keep it, and don’t get in administrative trouble, you’ll bet cruising along earning 65 days total credit for each 30-day period – 30 days flat time, 20 days good time, and 15 days work time.

Generally speaking, an inmate or person convicted of a crime is not allowed to raise grounds for relief in an application for writ of habeas corpus based entirely on events that occurred during trial. Such grounds are described as “record-based” because they are a part of the reporter’s record. The Court of Criminal Appeals established the prohibition against raising such claims in the context of Article 11.07 writ jurisprudence (i.e. writs filed post-conviction under Article 1107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), but the general prohibition against “record-based” claims could also be applied to writs filed to challenge misdemeanor convictions and other types of statutory and non-statutory writs.

The rationale behind the prohibition is simple. If the claim is record-based, then it could have been raised on direct appeal. If the defendant did raise the issue on appeal, then the Court of Criminal Appeals considers it resolved – you don’t get “another bite at the apple.” Conversely, if you didn’t raise that issue on appeal, then you have effectively waived the issue – you had your chance to bite the apple, but didn’t, so . . . no apple for you. I promise no more apple metaphors.

In any event, that’s the rule. But as always, an inmate looking to file an 11.07 application should be mindful of a few exceptions.

The Texas legislature has given judges and juries broad discretion in assessing punishment, especially for 1st Degree felonies. If you’re convicted of a 1st-degree crime and have no criminal history or enhanceable aspects to the offense, you face anywhere from 5 to 99 years in prison.

This can lead to unfair discrepancies in sentencing for defendants that commit the same kinds of crimes. Sometimes the personality and history of the person on the bench ends up being more important than the facts of the case (e.g. is the judge a “hard nosed” ex-prosecutor, a former civil attorney with sympathies for those with substance abuse problems, or a women’s advocate who absolutely hates family violence cases). And, if you’re going to the jury for punishment, it’s basically a complete wildcard.

Texas repeat offender statutes complicate matters. If you’ve been consecutively convicted of two prior felonies, the prosecutor can indict you as a habitual offender. Upon conviction, your minimum prison sentence is 25 years.

Texas parole blogs often warn inmates that they should never waive a right to a revocation hearing. This is good advice, but unfortunately the intended audience is usually already incarcerated and doesn’t get to hear it.

So this entry is for those individuals newly released to parole who are currently in good standing with their PO but who need to know the consequences of waiving their right to a revocation hearing. Rather than dryly outline the procedures — blue warrant, arrest, meeting with PO, preliminary hearing, revocation hearing — I think an illustrative PO tactic is better. At least it gives you some strategic insight.

There comes a point in any revocation when the PO attempts to “sell” the parolee on waiving his rights to a revocation hearing. Usually, this occurs with the two actors — PO and parolee — facing each other, with wire mesh or safety glass between them. Often each person will have a plastic jail phone receiver pressed up against his or her ear.

It seems like a simple question. Most of my clients believe that when you appeal a conviction you get to let the appellate court know all the mistakes that were made during trial. Unfortunately, it’s not that simple.

There are two factors that limit the complaints (or points of error) that you can raise on appeal.

The first limiting factor is the concept of preservation. Although there are some exceptions, for the most part you only get raise issues on appeal that were preserved during the trial. The usual steps to preservation are: 1) make an objection; 2) make sure the trial court rules on your objection; and 3) if you are trying to admit something into evidence, make sure you make a record of what you wouldhave admitted if allowed. If these steps are not taken, the appellate court will not be able to review your complaint, even if it was an otherwise valid legal issue.