No More Discretion for Published Cases

So, for the past few months, I've been sorting through all of the Texas criminal appellate decisions as they are released to determine, first, which cases are designated for publication, and, second, whether those published cases are worth writing about.  From now on, I'm taking away my own discretion.  I will simply post about every published criminal case, regardless of the level of intrigue I believe the case possesses (or doesn't).  Of course, those cases that I deem interesting will receive a much broader coverage, and those other cases, well...I'll just let you know that they're out there and you can read them if you want to learn more.

Here's one of those "other" cases.  The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals released its opinion in Ex Parte Michael Florence.  For any non-lawyers reading - when a CCA case begins with Ex Parte, its a dead giveaway that you're about to read a case regarding an application for a writ of habeas corpus.  Habeas Corpus is a legal action wherein a person seeks relief from (what he deems) unlawful detention.

In this case, Michael Florence, the applicant, submitted an application for a writ of habeas corpus seeking credit for pre-sentence confinement.  As the Court explained in dismissing the application (below), a writ of habeas corpus is not the correct procedure to gain the requested relief.
  

  Pre-sentence time credit claims typically must be raised by a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc filed with the clerk of the convicting trial court.  If the trial court denies the motion for judgment nunc pro tunc or fails to respond, relief may be sought by filing an application for writ of mandamus in a court of appeals.  If the court of appeals denies the application, ...relief may be sought by filing an application for writ of mandamus in this Court.  The applicant did not use that procedure.
     Instead he has sought relief by a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus under Article 11.07.  An application for writ of habeas corpus under Article 11.07 may be used to raise a claim for pre-sentence time credit if an applicant alleges that he is presently being illegally confined because he would have discharged his sentence if given the proper time credit.