Opinion
WR-75,864-05
02-08-2023
EX PARTE BARTHOLOMEW ANTONIO GUZMAN, Applicant
Do not publish
ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS CAUSE NO. 1053411-B IN THE 262ND DISTRICT COURT FROM HARRIS COUNTY
Yeary, J., filed a concurring opinion in which Slaughter, J., joined.
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Applicant was convicted of causing serious bodily injury to a child and sentenced to ninety years' imprisonment. The First Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Guzman v. State, No. 01-06-00946-CR (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist] Feb. 7, 2008) (not designated for publication). 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.
Applicant alleges that the State presented false testimony at trial and relies on the statutory basis in Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 11.073 to assert that new scientific evidence has emerged that contradicts the scientific evidence relied upon by the State at trial.
Applicant has alleged facts that, if true, might entitle him to relief. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.073; Ex parte Chabot, 300 S.W.3d 768 (TEX. CRIM. APP. 2009). 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). 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 findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether the State's expert witness testimony was false, and if so, whether the error contributed to Applicant's conviction. The trial court shall also make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether the information included in the report of Dr. Harry J. Bonnell is based on relevant scientific evidence which was not available at the time of Applicant's trial, whether the scientific evidence would be admissible under the Texas Rules of Evidence at a trial held on the date of the application, and whether, had the scientific evidence been presented at trial, by a preponderance of the evidence Applicant would not have been convicted. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.073. 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 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.
Applicant was convicted in 2006 of causing serious bodily injury to a child and sentenced to ninety years' imprisonment. The First Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction in 2008. Guzman v. State, No. 01-06-00946-CR, 2008 WL 340001 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Feb. 7, 2008) (not designated for publication). In October of 2022, Applicant filed a subsequent application for writ of habeas corpus in the county of conviction. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07. This Court denied Applicant's previous application challenging the same conviction in 2017. In his present application, he alleges that the State presented false testimony at trial in violation of Applicant's due process rights. He also alleges that he is entitled to a new trial under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure 11.073, because there is newly available scientific evidence that contradicts the scientific evidence relied on by the State at trial. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.073.
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. To pass the bar against consideration of the merits of subsequent writ applications, Applicant argues that the legal bases for his current claims were unavailable when he filed his previous applications. But even once the legal bases for his current claims were available, Applicant delayed presenting his current claims. Regarding his false testimony claim, the legal basis for such a claim arose in Ex parte Chabot, a case handed down by this Court in 2009. Ex parte Chabot, 300 S.W.3d 768 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). Applicant did not file this subsequent writ application until almost thirteen 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 trial court "may sua sponte consider and determine whether laches should bar relief." Smith, 444 S.W.3d at 667. If the trial 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 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.
With these additional thoughts, I join the Court's order.