Hill, Larry ( 2010 )

  IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

---

  NO. WR-23,090-09

---

EX PARTE LARRY HILL, Applicant

---

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 0464745D IN THE 372ND DISTRICT COURT

FROM TARRANT 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 a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of aggravated assault on a jailer and sentenced to twenty-five years’ imprisonment. The Second Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Hill v. State, No. 02-94-00013-CR (Tex. App.–Fort Worth 1994, no pet.).

            Applicant contends that he was not granted a parole interview, that the judgment should not have included a deadly weapon finding, that trial counsel was ineffective, and that the trial court erred in ordering his sentence to run consecutively with another sentence.

            This is the third application challenging this conviction. Under Article 11.07, § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, we may not review the merits of Applicant’s claims unless he establishes that the factual or legal bases of his claims were not previously available or that “by a preponderance of the evidence, but for a violation of the United States Constitution no rational juror could have found the applicant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.07, § 4(a)(1)(2); Ex parte Brooks, 219 S.W.3d 396, 401 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). Because the factual basis of Applicant’s first claim was not available when he filed his previous application, we will review it on the merits. Inmates in Texas do not have a liberty interest in being released to parole that is protected by the Due Process Clause. Ex parte Geiken, 28 S.W.3d 553, 558 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000); Johnson v. Rodriguez, 110 F.3d 299, 305 (5th Cir. 1997). This claim is denied. Applicant’s remaining claims are dismissed. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.07, § 4. Accordingly, this application is denied in part and dismissed in part.

Filed: December 8, 2010

Do not publish