Opinion
WR-90 719-01
04-27-2022
EX PARTE RUBEN GARCIA JR, Applicant
Do not publish
ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS CAUSE NO. 7691-1 IN THE 82ND DISTRICT COURT FROM FALLS COUNTY
Yeary, J., filed a concurring opinion, which Slaughter, J. joined.
ORDER
Per curiam.
Applicant was convicted of aggravated robbery and sentenced to ninety years' imprisonment. The Applicant did not file a direct appeal. Applicant filed this application for a writ of habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and the district clerk forwarded it to this Court. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.07. The record forwarded to this Court appears, however, to be incomplete. Applicant's memorandum of law and exhibits are missing.
On December 19, 2019, this Court ordered the district clerk to supplement the record by either forwarding to this Court the missing documents or certify in writing that those documents are not part of the record. The clerk was ordered to respond within thirty days from the date of the order but the clerk has not responded to this Court's order.
We remand this application to the trial court, which shall ensure that the habeas record is supplemented with a complete copy of Applicant's memorandum of law and exhibits, as well as any affidavits, motions, objections, proposed findings and conclusions, orders, and transcripts from hearings and depositions. See Tex. R. App. P. 73.4(b)(4). The trial court shall respond within thirty days from the date of this order. Any extensions of time must be requested by the trial court and obtained from this Court.
Yeary, J., filed a concurring opinion in which Slaughter, J., joined.
Applicant pled guilty and was convicted in 2003 of aggravated robbery and sentenced to ninety years' imprisonment. He waived his right of appeal.
In November 2019, Applicant filed an application for writ of habeas corpus in the county of conviction. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.07. In his application, he alleges multiple claims, including ineffective assistance of counsel, but the fact sections in his form writ application refer to a "Memorandum of Law and Exhibits" that is missing from the writ application.
Today, the Court remands this application to the trial court to further develop the record. I join the Court's remand order. But I write separately to address my thoughts concerning the doctrine of laches and its possible application to this case. See Ex parte Smith, 444 S.W.3d 661 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (holding a trial court has the authority to sua sponte consider the doctrine of laches); Ex parte Bazille, ___ S.W.3d ___, No. WR-89, 851-02, 2022 WL 108348 (Tex. Crim. App. Jan. 12, 2022) (Yeary, J., concurring).
The doctrine of laches ought to be considered in a case like this one. Applicant's trial occurred in 2003, but this writ application was not filed until over sixteen years later. The record is also silent regarding circumstances that may excuse Applicant's delay, and at least some explanation for the long delay in filing should be provided.
Consistent with this Court's precedent, the trial court may, sua sponte, give Applicant the opportunity to explain the reasons for the delay. It may also give the State's prosecutors and/or former counsel for Applicant an opportunity to state whether Applicant's delay has caused any prejudice to their ability to defend against Applicant's claims. And ultimately, the trial court may include findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning the doctrine of laches in its response to this Court's remand order.
"Our revised approach will permit courts to more broadly consider the diminished memories of trial participants and the diminished availability of the State's evidence, both of which may often be said to occur beyond five years after a conviction becomes final." Ex parte Perez, 398 S.W.3d 206, 216 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (citing Ex parte Steptoe, 132 S.W.3d 434, 437-39 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (Cochran, J., dissenting)).
With these additional thoughts, I join the Court's order.