In the Court of Criminal 

Appeals of Texas

══════════

No. WR-93,452-03

══════════

EX PARTE JAMES MICHAEL FIELDS,

Applicant

═══════════════════════════════════════

On Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus

Cause No. B17234-0705-W3 in the 242nd District Court

From Hale County

═══════════════════════════════════════

YEARY, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which KELLER, P.J., and 

SLAUGHTER, J., joined.

Applicant was convicted in 2008 of two counts of aggravated 

sexual assault of a child and sentenced to sixty years’ imprisonment. 

The Seventh Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction in 2010. Fields v. 

State, No. 07-08-0454-CR (Tex. App.—Amarillo Feb. 25, 2010) (not 

designated for publication).
FIELDS – 2

Applicant filed this application for writ of habeas corpus in July 

2022 in the county of conviction. Prior to this application, Applicant filed 

one application for writ of habeas corpus in December 2021 and a second 

application in April 2022. Both applications were dismissed as 

noncompliant. In this application, Applicant alleges ineffective 

assistance of counsel, actual innocence due to new medical studies, an 

ex post facto violation, due process violations, and equal protection 

violations. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07.

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. Applicant’s appeal was finalized in 2010, but his first noncompliant

writ application was not filed until 2021, and his first compliant writ 

application was not filed until twelve years after his appeal was final.1

The record is also silent regarding circumstances that may excuse 

Applicant’s delay, and at least some explanation for the long delay in 

1 “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)). 
FIELDS – 3

filing should be provided.

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.

FILED: September 28, 2022

DO NOT PUBLISH