## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS N O . A P - 76, 067
JA Y E D W I N G I B SO N , R el at or

v. D A LL A S C O U N TY D I STR I C T C LE R K , R e s ponde nt
ON AP P LI CAT I ON F OR A W RI T OF M ANDAMUS CAUS E N O. W 9 0 - 4 7 1 7 6 - T( A) I N T HE 2 8 3 r d J UDI CI AL DI S TR I CT COURT FROM DALLAS CO UNTY
P ercur i am . O P I N I O N
R el at orhas fi l ed a m ot i on for l eave t o fi l e a w r i t of m andamus purs uantt o t he or i gi nal j ur i s di ct i on of t hi s C our t . I n i t , he cont ends t hat he fi l ed an a ppl i cat i on fora w r i tof habe as
corpus i n t he 283r d J udi ci al D i s t r i ctC our tof D al l as C ount y on J une 7, 2008. H e al l eges t hat
m or e than 35 day s have el aps ed s i nce he fi l ed thatappl i cat i on i n t he di s t r i ctcour t . H e as ks t hatw e or dert he di s t r i ctcl er k t o for w ar d hi s 11. 07 appl i cat i on t o t hi s C our tbeca us e he ha sGIBSON - 2

h e a rd n o th in g f

ro m th e d istric t c o u rt a n d w a s alle g e d ly to ld b y th e d istric t cle rk to re f ile h is h a b e a s c o rp u s a p p lic a tio n . O n N ovember 5, 2008, t hi s C our thel d t hi s m andamus a ppl i cat i on i n abey ance and
or der ed t he di s t r i ctcl er k t o r es pond beca us e more t han 35 day s had el aps ed s i nce the al l eged fil ing d ate a n d this C o u rt h a d n o re c o rd o f a ti m elyen tered o rde r de sign ati n g issue s. In
r es pons e t o t hi s C our t ’ s or der , t he di s t r i ctcl er k for w ar ded a c opyof a n or derdes i gnat i ng
co n test ed fa ctua l i ssu es w h ich th e tri al ju d g e h ad en tered o n N o v em b er 1 7 , 2 0 0 8
. T h is C o u rt h as sti ll n otr ece i ved t he 11. 07 appl i cat i on forw r i tof habe as corpus and the cl er k has not
su b m itt e d a n yin f

o rm a tio n sh o w in g th a t th e o r d e r d e sig n a tin g f a c tu a l issu e s w a s tim e ly ent ere d
. W e the r efor e gr antG i bs on’ s m ot i on forl eave t o fi l e an a ppl i cat i on fora w r i tof
m a n d a m u s . W hen a pe r s on fi l es an appl i cat i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus chal l engi n g a fi nal fe lon yco n v ict ion w ith the clerk o f t h e co u rt in w h ich t h e co n v ict ion w as ob tai n ed , the c lerk
s hal l as s i gn t he appl i cat i on t o t hatt r i al cour tand s end a c opyof t he appl i cat i on vi a ce r t i fi ed
m a il o r p e rs o n a l s e rv ic e to th e a tto rn e y re p re s e n tin g th e S ta te . See T EX . C OD E C R IM . P R OC . A rt. 1 1 .0 7 , § (b ). T h e S tate th e n h a s 1 5 d a y s to re sp o n d to th e a lleg a tio n s in th e w rit
a p p lic a tio n . I

d. A ft ert he expi r at i on of t he t i m e al l ow ed fort he St at e t o r es pond, t he t r i al
cour ti s al l ow ed an a ddi t i onal t w entyday s t o det er m i ne w hetherthe appl i cat i on cont ai ns al l egat i ons of contr over t ed, pr evi ous l yunr es ol ved fa ct s m ateri al t o t he l egal i t yof t he appl i cant ’ s confi nement . A r t . 11. 07, §3( c)
. I f t he tr i al cour tdet er m i nes t hatt he appl i cat i onGIBSON - 3

T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . art. 11.04 (“ Every provision relatingto the writ of habe as 1 corpus shall be most favora bly construed in order to g ive ef fec t to the remedy, and prote ct the ri ghts of thepe rs on

se e kin gre lie f u

nd e r i t” ); se eEx

pa rteKe rr , 6 4 S. W.3 d 4 14 , 4 19 (T e x. Crim. App. 2002) (“ The purposeof a writ of habe as cor pus is to obtain a speedy

and ef fec tive ad j u d i cat i o no f ap er s o n 's ri ghtt o l i b er at i o nfr o mi l l ega lre s tra i nt . “) (c i t i n g Blackle dge v. A llison , 431 U.S. 63, 71 (1977) (“ [T] he ver y purpose of

the writ of ha

beas c orpus [is] to safeg

uard a person' s fre edom from de tention in violation of constitut ional guara ntees” ) and Ex

pa rteRa mz

y , 424 S.W .2d 220, 223 (Tex.1968) (“thepurpose of the writ of ha

beas c orpus is to obtain a speedy adjudication of a

person' s right to liberation from illeg al re straint”). forw r i tof habeas corpus pr es ent s s uch i s s ues i t“s hal l ent eran or derw i t hi n 20 day s of t he
e x p ir a tio n o f th e tim e a llo w e d f o r th e s ta te to re p ly, d e s ig n a tin g is s u e s o f f a c t to b e re s o lv e d .” Id
. T hi s pr ovi s i on i s m andat or y . A r t i cl e 11. 07 r equi r es t he tr i al j udge t o ei t her( 1) ent eran
o rd e r d e sig n a tin g c o n tes ted f a c tu a l issu e s w ith in th irty
- f iv e d a y s o f

th e re c e ip t o f

th e w rit appl i cat i on–r egar dl es s of w hethert he St at e fi l es a re s pons e; or , ( 2) i f t her e ar e no unr es ol ved fac t s t o be det er m i ned, t o s end the appl i cat i on and al l as s oci at ed mat er i al s t o t hi s C our t . T he L egi s l atur e’ s purpos e i n s et t i ng t hes e dea dl i nes w as t o ens ur e thatp o st- convi ct i on
c o n s t i tu t i o n a l c l a i m s w o u l d b e a d d r e s s e d a n d r e s o l v e d w i t h a p p r o p r i a t e s p e e d , e f f i c i e n c y, and fai rness . 1 A r t i cl e 11. 07 does not author i ze t he t r i al cour t t o ext end t he t i m e l i m i t at i ons i m pos ed b y t h e s t a tu t e , o t h e rt h a n b y a tim e ly e n tr yo f a n o rd e r d e s ig n a tin g is s u e s . McC r ee v . H am pt on , 8 2 4 S .W .2 d 5 7 8 , 5 7 9 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 9 2 )(e m p h a sis a d d e d ). W ith o u t a tim e ly entr y of an or derdes i gnat i ng i s s ues , A r t i cl e 11. 07 i m pos es a dutyupon t he cl er k of t he tr i al
cour tt o i m m edi at el yt r ans m i tt o t hi s C our tt he r ecor d fr om t he appl i cat i on fora w r i tof h ab ea s c o rp u s , d ee m ing the tri al co u rt ’s i n ac ti o n a f ind ing that n o issue s o f f ac t r eq u ir eGIBSON - 4

f u rt h e r r e s o lu tio n . A rt . 1 1 .0 7 , § 3 (c ). In th is c a se , R e lato r a lleg e s th a t h e f iled th is a p p lica tio n f

o r w rit o f h a b e a s c o rp u s in t he t r i al cour t on J une 7, 2008, an al l egat i on w hi ch t he di s t r i ct cl er k does not dispu te. T he t r i al cour tent er ed an or derdes i gnat i ng i s s ues on N ovember 17, 2 0 0 8, w hi ch w as aft ert he t i m e l i m i t at i ons pr ovi ded i n t he s t atut e had e xpi r ed. T he unt i m el yor deri nt er fer ed w i t h t he d istric t c ler k ’s d u ty to tra n sm it th e a p p lica tio n to th is C o u rt a n d is th e re f o re w ith o u t ef

f e c t. S e e Ma rtin v . H

a m lin , 25 S. W
. 3d 718, ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. 2000)
. T he di s t r i ctcl er k has no
au tho ri tyto con ti n u e t o h o ld R elator’s ap p li ca ti o n fo r w ri t o f ha b ea s co rpu s an d is un d er a
m i ni s t er i al dut yt o i m m edi at el yforwar d t he appl i cat i on and r el at ed r ecor ds i n caus e no. W 90- 47 1 7 6 -T (A ) f

i l ed in t he 2 83 Judici al D i stri ctC ou rtof D al l as C ou ntyt o thi s C ou rtun l ess rd t he cl er k can c er t i fy t hat R el at or ’ s habea s appl i cat i on w as del i ver ed t o t he St at e af t erO ct ober 12, 2008. W e c o n d iti o n a ll y g ra n t m a n d a m u s re lief a n d d ire c t th e R e sp o n d e n t to c o m p lyw ith th is o p in io n . T h e w rit o f m a n d a m u s w ill iss u e o n lyin th e e v e n t th e R e sp o n d e n t f a ils to
c o m p ly.
Fi l ed: J anuary14, 2009 P ub l i sh