Henry F. Hudson v. T. D. C. J. - I. D.

NO. 12-06-00285-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS HENRY F. HUDSON, § APPEAL FROM THE SEVENTH APPELLANT V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE– INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS MEMORANDUM OPINION Henry F. Hudson appeals from the trial court’s dismissal of his suit against the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–Institutional Division (TDCJ). His petition is entitled “Petitioner’s Motion for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief.” In it, he complains that TDCJ has incorrectly computed his remaining prison time. The trial court dismissed his suit pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, finding that the “claim is frivolous in that [Hudson’s] alleged controversy concerns the proper calculation of time credits after [his] parole was revoked” and citing Hudson’s failure to establish that he had exhausted his administrative remedies. In a single issue, Hudson asserts the trial court erred in dismissing his suit because he did exhaust his administrative remedies. We affirm. The Government Code requires an inmate who alleges that time credited on his sentence is in error to first present the claim to the TDCJ office of time credit resolution. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 501.0081 (Vernon 2004); Ex parte Dunlap, 166 S.W.3d 268, 269 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). If still aggrieved after completion of the administrative process, the inmate may file an application for writ of habeas corpus under Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 501.0081(b); Jackson v. Johnson, 69 S.W.3d 372, 373 (Tex. App.–Texarkana 2002, pet. denied). Petitions for postconviction writs of habeas corpus must be filed in the trial court in which the conviction was obtained, made returnable to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07, § 3 (Vernon 2005). A declaratory judgment action is not the proper vehicle for raising the issue of computation of time credits. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 501.0081(b). Because Hudson did not follow the proper procedures, we conclude that dismissal of his declaratory judgment action was appropriate. Therefore, we overrule Hudson’s sole issue without addressing the merits of Hudson’s claim. We affirm the trial court’s order of dismissal. JAMES T. WORTHEN Chief Justice Opinion delivered July 31, 2007. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J. (PUBLISH)