Opinion
WR-95,067-01
05-01-2024
EX PARTE CLAYTON DANIELS, Applicant
Do not publish
ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS CAUSE NO. 32065A IN THE 33RD DISTRICT COURT FROM BURNET COUNTY
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Applicant was convicted of desecration of a cemetery and sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment. 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.
On July 25, 2023, the trial court entered an order designating issues. The district clerk properly forwarded this application to this Court under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 73.4(b)(5). However, this application was forwarded before the trial court made findings of fact and conclusions of law. This Court granted an "Agreed Motion to Place 11.07 Proceedings on Hold for 180 Days in the Court of Criminal Appeals." See Ex parte Speckman, 537 S.W.3d 49, 54-55 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017). The 180 days have now has passed.
We remand this application to the trial court to complete its evidentiary investigation and make findings of fact and conclusions of law.
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 record 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 which Slaughter, J., joined.
In 2006, Applicant made an open plea of guilty to desecration of a cemetery. At the time of Applicant's alleged offense in 2004, former Section 711.0311 of the Texas Health and Safety Code classified Applicant's alleged conduct as a third-degree felony. Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 634, § 12, pp. 2389-90, eff. Sept. 1, 1993, repealed by Acts 2005, 79th Leg., ch. 1025, § 4, p. 3482, eff. June 18, 2005. The trial court sentenced Applicant to ten years' imprisonment and a fine of $10,000.
In July of 2023, Applicant filed an application for writ of habeas corpus in the county of conviction. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.07. In his application, Applicant alleges illegal sentence, ineffective assistance of guilty plea counsel, and violations of his rights to due process and against double jeopardy.
Today, the Court remands this application 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 a case like this one. Applicant pled guilty in 2006, but he did not file this writ application until over seventeen 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.