## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS
N O . A P - 76, 006

JA M E S G I L B E R T B R O W N , R el at or

v. D I STR I C T C LE R K , D A LL A S C O U N TY , R e s ponde nt
ON AP P LICATION FOR AWRIT OF M ANDAM US CA USE NO . W0 5- 73 41 6- H( A) IN THE C RI M IN AL DI STRIC T C OU RT

F RO M DA LLA S CO UN TY

P er cur i am . OP I NI ON
Relator has f

iled a motion for leav e t o file a writ of mandamus pursua nt to the orig inal jurisdiction of this C ourt. I n it, he contends that he filed an 11.07 application for a wr it of habea s corpus in the c o n v i cting court on De cembe r 10, 2007. He alleg es that more tha n 35 day s have elapse d since the f

iling date and that a timely order desig nating issues has not been e ntere d. He wants this Court to order the district cle rk to forw ard his 11.07 applica tion.Br own -- 2

On M ay 7, 2008, this Court held t his application in abeyance and ordered the district clerk to respond bec ause more than 35 day s had elapse d since the alleg ed filing date and this Court had
no rec ord of a ti mely enter ed order designating issues. I n response to this C ourt’s orde r, the district
c le rk fo rw ard e d a

c op y of an o rd e r d e sig natin g iss ue s w hic h was enter e d o n Jun e 3, 20 08 . T his Court ha s st ill no t r e c e ive d th is 1 1. 07 a pp lic a tio n f

or a wr it o f h a

be a s c or pu s and now g ra

nts thi s motion for leave to file an application for a writ of mandamus beca use the orde r 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, the attorne y repr esenting the S tate has 15 day s to respond. See T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . Ar t. 1 1. 07 , § (b ). Af

te r the e xpir a tio n of the tim e a llo we d for the State to re sp on d, the tr ia l c ourt is all o wed 20 da

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

unresolved f

acts mate rial to the leg ality of the applica nt’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 licati on for writ

of ha be a s c or pu s p re se nts su c h is su e s it

“ s h a l l e n t e r

ano r d e r w i t h i n2 0 d ays o f

t h e e x p i r a t i o no 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, desig nating issues of fa ct to be re solved.” Id. Ar tic le 11 .0 7 d oe s not aut ho rize the tr ia l c ourt to
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 anb y a

tim e ly entry of an o rder desig nating issues. McCreev. Hampton , 8 24 S.W. 2d 57 8, 57 9 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 92 )( e mph a sis added)
. Wit hout a timely entry of an order desig nating issues, Article 11.07 imposes a duty upon the cler k of the trial court to immediately transmit to this Court the record from the application for a writ of hab e a s c o r

p u s , d e e mi n g th e tr ia l c o urt’ s in a c ti o na f in d in g th a t n o is s u e s o f

f a c t r e quire further resolution. Art. 11.07, §3(c ). I n this case , Relator filed this application for a wr it of habea s corpus in the trial c ourt onBr own -- 3

Dec ember

10, 2007. The trial c ourt enter ed an or der de signating issues on June 3, 2008, which wa s
a ft e r t he tim e lim itatio ns pr ov ide d in the statute had expir e d. Th is unti me ly or de r i nte rf

e re d w ith the dis tr ic t c le rk ’s duty

to t ra ns mit thi s a pp lic a tio n to thi s Cour

t and is t he re fo re wi tho ut e ff

e c t. See M a r t i n v . H a ml in , 25 S.W. 3d

71 8, (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 00 ). Th e dis tr ic t c le rk ha s n o a uth or ity to
c on tin ue to h old Re lator ’s a

pp lic a tio n f

or a wr it o f ha

be a s c or pu s and is un de r a

min ist e ri a l duty

to immediately

forwa rd the application and related rec ords in Cause No. W05-73416-H( A) filed in the Criminal District Court of Dallas County to this C ourt. We c on dit ion a lly

g ra nt m and a mus re lie f a

nd dir e c t th e Re sp on dent to 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