## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS
N O . A P - 76, 005

C H A R L E S A N T H O N Y Y O U N G , R el at or

v. H A R R I S C O U N T Y D I S T R I C T C L E R K , R e spo nde nt

O N A PPL I C A TIO N FO R A W R I T O F M A N D A M U S

C A U SE N O . 10025472 I N THE 1 7 7 J UDI CI AL DI S TRI CT CO URT FROM HA RRI S CO UNTY

TH

P er cur i am .
OP I NI ON Relator has filed a motion for leave to f ile a writ of mandamus pursuant to th e o ri g inal jurisdiction o f t h i s Court. I n it, he contends that he filed an 11.07 a pplication for wr it of habea s corpus in the tria l court on June 5, 2008. He alleg es t hat m ore than 35 day s have elapsed since the fi lin g date a nd

that a tim e ly or de r d e sig natin g iss ue s h a s n ot b e e n e nte re d. He wa nts thi s Co ur

t to order the district cler

k to forwa

rd his 11.07 application.On Aug ust 6, 2008, this Court held this a pplication in a

bey ance and orde red the district clerk to respond bec ause more than 35 day s had elapsed since the alleg ed filing dates a nd this Court had
no rec ord of timely

enter ed orde rs designating issues. I n response to this C ourt’s orde r, the district cler k forwa rded a copy of an order

desig nating issues which had be en ente red on Aug ust 5, 2008. Th is C ourt

ha s sti ll no t re c e ive d the 11 .0 7 a pp lic a tio n f

or wr it o f h a

be a s c or pu s and no w g ra nts thi s motion for leave to file an a pplication for a writ of m andamus because the order desig nating issues was untimely

enter ed. Upon re ceipt of a

n application for

a wr it of habea s corpus c halleng ing a final fe lony conviction, t he attorney

repr esenting the State has 15 da y s to respond. See T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . Ar t. 1 1. 07 , § (b ). Af

te r t he e xpir a tio n of the tim e a llo we d for the Sta te to re sp on d, the tr ia l c ourt is allowed 20 da

y s to determine whe ther the a pplication contains alleg ations of controverted, previously

unresolved f

acts mate rial to the leg ality of the applicant’ s confine ment. Art. 11.07, §3(c ). I f t he tr ia l c ourt

de te rm ine s th a t th e a

pp lic a tio n f

or wr it o f h a

beas corp us pre se nts su c h is su e s it

“ s h a l l e n t e r a n o r d e r w i t h i n 2 0 d a y s o f t h e e x p i r a t i o n o f t h e t i m e a l l o w e d f o r t h e s t a t e t o r e p l y, d es i g nating issues of fa ct to be re solved.” Id. A rt i c l e 1 1
. 0 7 d o e s n o t a u t h o r i z e t h e t r i a l c ou rtto
e x t e n d t h e t i m e l i m i t a t i o n s i mp o s e d b y t h e s t a tu t e , o t h e r

t h a n b y a

tim e ly entry of a n order desig nating issues. McCreev. Hampton , 8 24 S.W. 2d 57 8, 57 9 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 92 )( e mph a sis added)
. Wit hout a timely entry of an or der de signating issues, Ar ticle 11.07 imposes a duty upon the cler k of the trial c ourt to immediately transmit to this Court the rec ord from the a pplication for
a wr it of habea s cor p u s , d ee m i n g the trial cour t’s inaction a f

inding that no issues of f act r equire further resolution. Art. 11.07, §3(c ). I n this case, Relator filed this application for writ of habe as corpus in the t rial court on J une 5, 20 08
. Th e tr ia l c ourt e nte re d or de r de sig natin g iss ue s on Au g us t 5, 20 08 , wh ic h wa s a ft e r t he tim elimit ations provided in the statute had expired. The untimely order interfe red with the district clerk’ s

du ty to tr a ns mit the a

pp lic a tio n to this Court a nd is t he re fo re wi tho ut e ff

e c t. Se e Ma rti n v . H

am lin , 25 S.W. 3d 7 1 8 , ( T e x. C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 0 )
. T h e d i s t r i c tc l e r k h a s n o a u t h o r i t y t o c o n t i n u e t o ho ld Re la tor ’s a

pp lic a tio n f

or wr it o f h a

be a s c or pu s a nd is und e r a min ist e ri a l duty to i mme diate ly forwa rd the a pplication and related rec ords in c ause no. 1002572, filed in the 177 J udicial District th Court of Har

ris County

to this C ourt. We c on dit ion a lly

g ra nt m a nd a mus re lie f a

nd dir ect th e Re sp on de nt t o c omp ly wi th t his opinion. The writ of manda mus will i ssue only

in the event the Re spondent fails to comply
. Filed: September

24, 2008 Do no t pu bli sh