Opinion
No. 05-19-00666-CR
03-17-2021
EX PARTE MICHAEL DWAYNE WILLIAMS
On Appeal from the County Criminal Court No. 10 Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. MC18A5804
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Molberg, Reichek, and Nowell
Opinion by Justice Molberg
Michael Dwayne Williams appeals the trial court's denial of his application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to article 11.02 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. In three issues, appellant generally contends the trial court abused its discretion when it found (1) appellant failed to provide sufficient facts to support his allegations, and (2) appellant's claims were barred by the doctrine of laches. Because the record and applicable law support the trial court's denial of habeas relief, we affirm the trial court's order.
On February 18, 1983, appellant pleaded guilty to misdemeanor driving while intoxicated, and the trial court placed him on probation. The following year, before appellant had completed his probation, the trial court revoked appellant's probation and sentenced him to confinement in the Dallas County Jail for ten days.
The records from the underlying appeal have been destroyed by the County Clerk's Office pursuant to statute. The "facts" of the underlying appeal are from the FORVUS computer printout.
Over 30 years later, on August 9, 2018, appellant filed an application for writ of habeas corpus under article 11.072 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. The trial court denied appellant's application without a hearing on May 2, 2019. Specifically, the trial court found appellant failed to provide adequate justification for the delay in raising his claims and, thus, his claims are barred by the doctrine of laches. The trial court also found appellant failed to provide sufficient facts and evidence to support his claims. This appeal followed.
When reviewing a trial court's ruling on a habeas corpus application, we view the facts in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling and will uphold it absent an abuse of discretion. Kniatt v. State, 206 S.W. 3d 657, 664 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). However, the generally-applied abuse of discretion standard is not appropriate "when the decision does not turn on the credibility or demeanor of witnesses." Ex parte Martin, 6 S.W.3d 524, 526 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); see also Ex parte Aguilar, 501 S.W.3d 176, 178 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, no pet.). Statutory construction is a question of law that we review de novo. Spence v. State, 325 S.W.3d 646, 650 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010); see also Ex parte Aguilar, 501 S.W.3d at 178. We will uphold the trial court's decision on any theory of law applicable to the case. Ex parte Nelson, 546 S.W.3d 742, 747 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2018, no pet.); Ex parte Evans, 410 S.W.3d 481, 484 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2013, pet. ref'd).
Here, because appellant is not entitled to relief under article 11.072, we cannot conclude the trial court erred by denying his request for a writ of habeas corpus. Appellant's application was specifically filed pursuant to article 11.072 which establishes "the procedures for application for a writ of habeas corpus in felony or misdemeanor cases in which the applicant seeks relief from an order or judgment of conviction placing him under community supervision." See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.072, §1. The limited record before us shows that on February 18, 1983, appellant was found guilty of driving while intoxicated, and placed on probation. His probation was revoked on August 9, 2018, prior to its completion, and he was sentenced to 10 days' confinement. Because appellant failed to complete his probation, he is not eligible for relief under article 11.072. See Ex parte Villanueva, 252 S.W.3d 391, 397 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (article 11.072 provides exclusive means by which district courts may exercise their original habeas jurisdiction in case involving an individual who is either serving a term of community supervision or who has completed a term of supervision); Ex parte Glass, 203 S.W.3d 856, 857 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (article 11.072 provides the procedure by which "persons who are on community supervision or who have been on a community supervision that was never revoked may challenge the underlying conviction) (emphasis added). Thus, the trial court did not err by denying his application requesting a writ of habeas corpus under article 11.072.
Appellant does not argue on appeal that his application should be construed as an application filed under article 11.09. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. ART. 11.09) (providing a person confined on a misdemeanor charge may apply for a writ of habeas corpus). Nor does the substance of appellant's application indicate he was seeking relief under article 11.09. Thus, we do not consider the merits of appellant's application with respect to article 11.09. --------
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's order denying appellant's application for a writ of habeas corpus.
Ken Molberg
KEN MOLBERG
JUSTICE 190666f.p05
JUDGMENT
On Appeal from the County Criminal Court No. 10, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. MC18A5804.
Opinion delivered by Justice Molberg. Justices Reichek and Nowell participating.
Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. Judgment entered this 17th day of March, 2021.