Opinion
WR-94,473-01 WR-94,473-02
02-01-2023
EX PARTE JOE ALBERT RAMON, SR., Applicant
Do not publish
ON APPLICATIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS CAUSE NOS. B-29,686-A & B-29,687-A IN THE 161ST DISTRICT COURT FROM ECTOR COUNTY
Yeary, J. filed a concurring opinion joined by Slaughter, J.
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Applicant was convicted of murder and attempted capital murder and sentenced to ninety-nine years' imprisonment for each cause. The Eighth Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction for the murder. Ramon v. State, No. 08-03-0045-CR. It appears that he did not file a notice of appeal for the attempted capital murder conviction. 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 district clerk properly forwarded these applications to this Court under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 73.4(b)(5). However, the applications were forwarded before the trial court made findings of fact and conclusions of law. We remand these applications 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.
Applicant was convicted in 2002 of murder and attempted capital murder and sentenced to ninety-nine years' imprisonment for each cause, to run concurrently. The Eighth Court of Appeals affirmed his murder conviction in 2005. Ramon v. State, No. 08-03-0045-CR (Tex. App.-El Paso Mar. 17, 2005) (not designated for publication). Applicant did not appeal his conviction for attempted capital murder. In December of 2022, Applicant filed two applications for writs of habeas corpus in the county of conviction. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.07. In his applications, he alleges ineffective assistance of counsel during punishment.
Today, the Court remands these applications 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 appeal was finalized when the court of appeals issued its mandate in September of 2006, but Applicant did not file these writ applications until 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.
"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.