Opinion
05-23-00132-CR
03-12-2024
EX PARTE IRMA MENDEZ, Appellant
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. WX22-91466-I
ORDER
BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN PRESIDING JUSTICE
After signing a confession and pleading guilty, appellant Irma Mendez was convicted of delivery of a controlled substance on March 16, 1999. Twenty-three years later, Mendez filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging she received ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court denied Mendez's petition based on the equitable doctrine of laches. In a single issue, Mendez appeals the trial court's denial on the ground that she received ineffective assistance of counsel.
Mendez's brief does not, however, address the controlling question at bar because it fails to address whether the trial court erred when it concluded her request for relief is barred by laches. Instead, Mendez contends the trial court "abandoned its role of neutral arbiter of the facts and the law and improperly became an active advocate of the respondent/[S]tate" when it denied Mendez's request for habeas relief because the State's invocation of laches was untimely. Trial courts are authorized to determine whether laches should bar relief without briefing from the parties. Ex parte Smith, 444 S.W.3d 661, 667 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); see also Ex parte Bowman, 447 S.W.3d 887, 888 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (per curiam).
We conclude that the absence of briefing on the question at bar presents a substantive defect because this case has not been properly presented in the briefs. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.9(b). We ORDER Mendez to submit supplemental briefing addressing whether the trial court erred when it denied her petition based on laches within 20 days of the date of this order. Id; see also Ex parte Perez, 398 S.W.3d 206, 217 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) ("[I]t may be proper to consider, among all relevant circumstances, factors such as the length of the applicant's delay in filing the application, the reasons for the delay, and the degree and type of prejudice resulting from the delay."). Finally, we ORDER the State to file its response, if any, within 15 days after Mendez's brief is filed.