Byrd v. Texas (original by judge richardson)
Annotate this CaseThe facts of this case were similar to those in "Ex Parte Wrigley," (178 S.W.3d 828 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005)) except for one important twist: in this case appellant was sentenced on the second offense before his parole on the first offense was revoked. So, the question this case presented for the Court of Criminal Appeals' review was whether, if a defendant commits a second offense while on parole for a first offense, is the trial court able to stack the second sentence on top of the first sentence if the defendant’s parole on the first offense has not been revoked before he is sentenced on the second offense? Following appellate court precedent, the Court of Appeals held that a trial court could stack a new sentence on a prior sentence for which the defendant is on parole, “irrespective of parole revocation.” To be consistent with its opinion in Wrigley, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that the timing of a defendant’s parole revocation regarding the original offense affects whether a trial court has the ability to stack a second sentence on top of that original offense pursuant to Article 42.08(a). In this case, because there was no evidence that appellant’s parole had been revoked at the time he was sentenced on his second offense, the trial court’s cumulation order was invalid. The Court modified the judgment of the court of appeals accordingly and reformed the trial court judgments to delete the cumulation order.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.