Ex Parte Molina
No. WR-83,799-01
Case Summary written by Eric Matthews, Staff Member.
JUDGE YEARY delivered an opinion for the unanimous court.
The trial court convicted Molina of aggravated robbery and sentenced him to 16 years’ confinement. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Molina then brought an application for writ of habeas corpus, claiming that he was not credited for the time he spent in jail prior to his conviction. Molina claimed he was entitled to a one-year credit because he never bonded out on the charge. He did not claim to have exhausted all administrative remedies to resolve the credit; therefore, the issue for the Court of Criminal Appeals was whether exhaustion of all such remedies is required regarding a claim that the judgment was incorrect.
Texas Government Code § 501.0081(b)(1) provides that a claim of a time-served credit error is not allowed in an application for a writ of habeas corpus until the inmate “receives a written decision issued by the highest authority provided for in the resolution system.” The court, however, determined that this language did not apply to Molina’s time-credit claim because his claim of an incorrect judgment was not subject to the authority of the Department of Criminal Justice—the relevant “resolution system.” Only the judicial system has authority to correct a judicial error, and therefore, authority to consider his claim. The court stated that to interpret the Code to include every time-served credit error claim would lead to the absurd result that the Department of Criminal Justice must, in certain cases, alter a judgment—something it has no authority to do.
The court dismissed Molina’s claim, not based on 501.0081(b)(1), but on the grounds that his application for habeas corpus was an improper remedy. Because he only alleged that his judgment was incorrect, the proper remedy would be to first seek a nunc pro tunc judgment, and if that failed, an application for writ of mandamus.