Opinion
WR-95,457-01 WR-95,457-02 WR-95,457-03
02-21-2024
EX PARTE JUAN ANDRADE, Applicant
Do not publish
ON APPLICATIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS CAUSE NOS. W-1670106-A, W-1576166-A & W-1576165-A IN THE 282ND DISTRICT COURT FROM DALLAS COUNTY
ORDER
PER CURIAM
Applicant was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Applicant filed these applications for writs of habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and the district clerk forwarded them to this Court. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.07.
Applicant contends that his pleas were involuntary because the plea agreements were conditioned on his Texas and Florida sentences running concurrently and Applicant serving the sentences in Florida. Applicant has alleged facts that, if true, might entitle him to relief. Ex parte Huerta, 692 S.W.2d 681 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985). Accordingly, the record should be developed. The trial court is the appropriate forum for findings of fact. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.07, § 3(d). The trial court shall order trial counsel and the prosecutor to respond to Applicant's claims. In developing the record, the trial court may use any means set out in Article 11.07, § 3(d). If the trial court elects to hold a hearing, it shall determine whether Applicant is indigent. If Applicant is indigent and wants to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall appoint counsel to represent him at the hearing. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 26.04. If counsel is appointed or retained, the trial court shall immediately notify this Court of counsel's name.
The trial court shall make a finding as to whether Applicant was promised that he would serve his time in Florida as part of the plea agreements. Additionally, the trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether the plea agreements cannot be followed because they were conditioned on Applicant's Texas and Florida sentences running concurrently, and Applicant serving his sentences in Florida. The trial court may make any other findings and conclusions that it deems appropriate in response to Applicant's claims.
The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law within ninety days from the date of this order. The district clerk shall then immediately forward to this Court the trial court's findings and conclusions and the records developed on remand, including, among other things, affidavits, motions, objections, proposed findings and conclusions, orders, and transcripts from hearings and depositions. See Tex. R. App. P. 73.4(b)(4). Any extensions of time must be requested by the trial court and obtained from this Court.
Yeary, J., filed a concurring opinion.
In May of 2017, Applicant, pursuant to a plea bargain, pled guilty to three charges of the offense of murder, a first-degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code § 19.02. He was convicted on each charge and received three concurrent sentences of life imprisonment.
In December of 2023, Applicant filed these applications for writs of habeas corpus in the county of conviction. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.07. In his applications, he alleges that his pleas were involuntary because they were induced by an agreement that his Texas sentences would be served in Florida, where he was facing additional charges. Applicant alleges that he is still confined in Texas and, therefore, that the State has breached the terms of its plea agreement.
In his accompanying memorandum of law, Applicant alleges that he "was extradited to the State of Florida to face the homicide charge in [that] State, where he also pled guilty, but was for some reason extradited back to the State of Texas[,] which [he] claims was in violation of the agreed[-]upon terms of [his] plea agreement."
Today, the Court remands these applications to the convicting 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 convicting court has the authority to sua sponte consider the doctrine of laches); Ex parte Bazille, 663 S.W.3d 68 (Tex. Crim. App. 2022) (Yeary, J., concurring).
The doctrine of laches ought to be considered in cases like these. Applicant pled guilty in 2017, but he did not file these writ applications until over six-and-a-half 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.
"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)).
Consistent with this Court's precedent, the convicting court "may sua sponte consider and determine whether laches should bar relief." Smith, 444 S.W.3d at 667. If the convicting court does so, it must give Applicant the opportunity to explain the reasons for the delay and 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. Id. at 670. And ultimately, the convicting court may include findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning the doctrine of laches in its response to this Court's remand order.
With these additional thoughts, I join the Court's order.