The standardized judgment forms promulgated by the OCA continue to refer to confinement in the State Jail or Institutional Division of the TDCJ, neither of which have existed for some time (indeed, did not exist at the time the standard forms were promulgated). We are required to use those forms by law (Art. 42.01 sec. 4). Apparently they do not confuse anyone at TDCJ, but shouldn't the forms be corrected to refer to the Correctional Institutions Division or something else?

Sounds like a good thing to bring to OCA's attention. You can call them at (512) 463-1625 and ask for Ted Wood -- he's one of the attorneys who works there -- or Carl Reynolds, the executive director.

There may be a bigger problem. The Penal Code requires a sentence to the "Institutional Division" or a "State Jail", neither of which exist. Does someone have a right to habeas relief since they are being held in a place not covered by the Penal Code?

I hope I don't sound like a maroon, but what's this about the State Jail and the TDCJ-ID not existing any more? Please explain.

From the TDCJ 2003 annual report: "In August 2003, TDCJ's executive director, with the approval of the Board, reorganized the Agency by aligning divisions and departments by functional areas. The newly-created Correctional Institutions Division merged the Institutional, State Jail, Private Facilities and Operations divisions, thereby channeling four reporting areas into one. The new division's three areas of responsibility are Private Facilities, Prison and State Jail Management, and Support Operations. "

That's how we can reduce the prison population! Just stop calling it prison?

"Sir, how many inmates does the institutional division currently hold?"

"None, Congressman, there is no such division."

TPC sec. 1.07(27) defines the institutional division as the "institutional division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice."

JAS

Yes, but those statutes, strangely, are superceded by the administrative code changes. The legislature, in typical fashion, gave TDCJ authority to rename and reorganize TDCA as it saw fit, regardless of how the agency was organized by statute. How is that for handing the henhouse to the fox?

I seriously doubt that the titles to those places could result in any legal problems. It's all confinement.

Has anyone encountered problems with findings on enhancement paragprahs on the new judgment form for "judgment adjudicating guilt". The ne judgment form placing defendant on deferred has a place for the finding, with the guilt being deferred is the finding of true also deferred? I am encountering the problem because our previous forms did not have a place for a finding of true for deferred - and now with the new judgment forms - no finding of true is recorded(trial court made no actual finding on the record re enhancements, but def entered plea of true) Issue on appeal - if no finding of true - illegal sentence. Of course wooldridge is helpful. Just wondered if anyone else encountered this problem. (of course the simple solution would be for the trial court to make the finding on the record when he sentences him - the trial court did not even make a finding of guilt - but Villela, 564 SW2d 750, Jones, 795 SW2d 199, and Parks, 960 SW2d 234 directly address that issue - no oral pronouncement of guilt required when trial court adjudicates guilt.

Another dumb question: The forms for regular probation by the court with a plea bargain refer to dates for sentence imposed and for sentence to commence. If a sentence is suspended, is it imposed or does it commence on the date of the plea? Seems like both blanks should be "N/A." What do you do?