ON DSSUE S) THT THER yyy Come
AT ESSURHS SUES © Uh ecracK<-
ING T) VW SUARY RKKUNT GH C
KZ WIE yc MIRGUWANT IN NETIAK
CQUAL, USTO To], TO lege Nv002 GKVinT
WS ESSUK #3. THAN THES Mes Gi, STS
TN oO Vil 1-381d WNT ON CSSUFS
THAT Ve COMIN 08S MIL HI TO Somely

CUM, Het BS, TS WONG SX, Hate Nua
ATTACH,” SE, AAMIRIR JUSS ON, EN,
Set, Mer 45.018, 45-05 © @ GH 1).

set, SVS PAS aely HP? lay THR
ypoon Cl. La. THAT a amylVnT 10s
wor HU TO Auply OSH Meta 3, 45-019
@ 4 QO) CIS-OS CVIRIE IVIVECS ON_ND.
TUES <QWAL VIRIGTIRURTAY YaayTO?_JAA
sme / TKD CAAT L| va / Udi FINe-
TNS TR ERY WAX eh “r-llod.-

eerAC-S 3-B Fy WATS F

SEN TARS© TNA OIGIVIIN Zaian

om vats © GURSS PLC RANMIIY

eet KAIC Sana dos 4-15-15

wT son (AE ANAS O07 (A 1. PEO IKE i G -KIO SI C
Ss X a KR TSSN [URS yt: SS SEER LESS Ph
“S30 11BO AK,



CROLL FFE rans xnvs CULL

. 238 Tex. 28 SOUTH WESTERN REPORTER, 3d SERIES

tory “money” judgment signed by: Judge
Woods:on.November 1, 1991, is void. wed

[4] We now address the portion of ap-

péllate issue fourteen complaining of inad-
equate notice of the recusal hearing. The
record before us reflects that following the
issuance of our opinion in “1995,’ Judge
Woods refused to recuse himself‘and £6)
mally requested that the * *presiding judge’
of ‘the administrative district, Judge Olen
Underwood, assign a judge to hear ‘the
recusal motion. The record next indicates
that on December 3, 1997, Judge’ Under-
wood faxed notice of the recusal hearing-to
“all attorneys of record.” The Décember
8, 1997, faxed notice reads as follows: “»
"A hearing’‘on the Motion to Recuse in’

43,911 RANZAU V.‘BROSSEAU, ET

"AL: in the 253rd“D:C. of Liberty, :Co.

Tx., has been set for Dec. 5, 1997 at

11:00 a.m. Before the Hon. Mark David-
andy__‘*'S0N; Judge; 11th.Judicial District * The ‘
~. -héaring will be in the 253rd D.C., Liber-

ty County Courthouse ~~
Assuming ‘the above fax was received by
:, all parties the same day it was sent, it
provided for only two days notice of the
hearing.:-A: hearing -was held on :Decem-
ber 5, 1997,:but the record reflects that
appellant’s trial. counsel was not _present.
Judge Davidson's: order, amounting to é3- “~~
sentially a default;judgment denying ap-
pellant’s recusal motion, states: “Counsel
for: Defendant. William D. Brosseau, ‘hav-
ing acknowledged to the Court that he
had: ‘been::notified of the date and: time of
hearirig failed to appear.”. The record fur-
ther reflects that on the day of the hear-.
ing;; December 5, 1997, appellant’s «trial
, counsel-mailed opposing counsel an instru-
ment ‘entitled, “Defendant's First Motion.
For'-Continuarice : of Recusal Hearing;
and/or.:Motion To Vacate.” In said mo-
tion, appellant’s trial counsel made the fol-
lowing contentions: on

Judge’ ‘Underwood’s office attempted

-to contact the:undersigned counsel about
: the hearing on December 3, 1997; but
the undersigned counsel-was in Austin
appearing: before the Supreme. Court’ of



B-GQ-UB)Y1
£ Z -<SUNAIM}

rmauoaiSy sey .9puag STEW a Jo ORAPUOD puE SUL pu SuOHEUNSSS
aon ofaRs st onpatd sap jo 57, Pawosal NBL ITY ‘dnasD sRONSAC] a Jo JoquoM e “x “SuedNOD 7p 19PUEG KAMEN $102 9

9 s9seoxa
+(seudxe uorsuedns

40 poved au saye uolsiniadns Ayunwwios sJeuoneqoid @ @¥one 0} uNod [EU @ Jo UOHDIPSUNt
tn GuipseBas airy s,un09 S14) PaypoD asnyeisi697 alg yeLA BuNoU) EZ Ie PEM 'S LEE ‘eMUeD 0g

s
“9t-S1S 12 PZM'S 00S

xo) a9 180 G82 ve MS LE 16K yo0deEY {ueuN 16) ODE BOY Wit) XOL) Eee 1e2 PMS
98 ‘uospjeuog ayed xz (yL0z ‘ddy ‘wud x21) 9E9 'ZE9 PEM 'S 6Zb ‘EIS "A UOSHIUM “6'8 ‘eaS

°
“(esuajep eoueBlyp-anp mel-uoWWOD at

no Buneo} oft siuowosInbas seideo-2y)-Jo-soUeNSs! PUE LOHOW-d47-J0-SuNl oN PaY_PoD AiaARIaYO
ZE-Zp e1oMsy 0) SuoHIPpe AsoIN}EIs esme|siB97 Yes 84) Jey BuIpNjoUOD) ZZ 1 PE'M’S LBE ‘eUED
‘998 ‘(payiwo UoneyD |eusaTU!) “py ,"2|TU poyeBInWosd-AjeroIpni e Jo UoIs!ap jeIoIpN e SI aNssl ye
uononyjsuoo oy] JeyjouM Salidde whew Yeu “UoNONN|sUOD Yeu BuIWNLanO InoUWM SieeWL euMIeIStB9T
‘ayy Yay oimeIs & 0} Aidde 0} anuqUoD 0} UOHORASUOD ewes aly spuayU! o:Mje}sI607 oY) aUNsold
fm, yeu pavers am “(get “ddy “wi ~X@1) 9z-SZL“LZZ PZ'M'S ¥L6 ‘IES A WaUeRjepEmy UL

€.
'p) “((q)g uoRDes) uoIsyadns AyunusLHOD
onesipnipe-pexajep 40 ((2-4)4z uonDag) uorsimedns AyjunuiWoD se;ntiau, JO} UoIsiALadns AyUNUIWIOD
uajep & o} eiqeliene | asuajep ,2oua6uIp anp, AOIMeIs aU “bz §°ZL'ZP
"UE "D0iq "WD apoD “xe ag “asUaFaP anjeUUYje UE Se pz UONDAg 'Z}'Zy OIUY UI BINIeIS!697
‘un Aq payipoo 4938] Sem esuajep ,2oua6iIp anp, aut “(6661 “Ady “WUD X91) LYZ “BEL PZM'S
£86 ‘a}BIS ‘A AjouudD aag “Buuedy LoHeD0Ne1 ayy Je IUEPUE}EP oN Aq pasies oq IsNUI JEU) eSUB}EP
10 229 Ut Bold © sem 1! Jeu) PUeidxe ‘peaysu) ‘pue JeuoN;psun! sem jUaLIEyINbes eoUebIIp-aNP aL
JU) Burpjoy ayy pamonesip am ‘39127 “(0661 “ddy "WUD xe 1) PBL ‘ELL PZ’M'S SEL ‘EIS “AJOUd 88S
“seideo panss| ou) Sunnoaxe ul eouablip enp asfosexo 0} peYy aleIg au) YEU PAY OsIe PeY NOD SIM)

(0) AuoUNe AloyeINBas pamopua-AjeuoANySUCD SII Pasio1aXa.
Ur. vo sod wonbosans jo wowueo 9
"TOES! GSIEISOMIOU PINDALAAT AR TEOU

Sy 2unuu souwero evonDnsioke vayneuN poe:

unpre euonoinsuake yey

saoujoo4

usnang
loz "s JaqWOAON :pasaneg
“phonon,

oy

rower se} 9p. NIE 2X Jo sUORPUOD pu IO: PvE SUORDMTSSL
sx 01 of st Beposd sm joa pans yA TY “doesn sexs] a JO JOqUE Bau eNO) SIG AIHW S107 2

s SaSPOXI|

tf 788 J0U pip junod jeu) ayy “uorsuadns
J0 poued sueanddy Jo uonestdxo au) Jaye panss] sem asco SIM) UI Seided oy) asNeDAG ‘EWA PIO aM

“g00z ‘e 400190 Uo pasidxe uolsiniodns AyunweD s,;ueDHddy “g00z “9 940120 PAIEP |
‘Seided SIU) , (UoHedORaY UCHZYOJd) LINVSSV GALVAVYDOV. JO} lUEDIddy yee 0} Sexe, Jo

upuad puog Noy pjay aq jleys au[s} I
Ue UONE|OIA Uo}sinJadns AjluWLIOD Jo SaBsEYD aly JOMSUE 0} 'SSOW STON
yeaus 0192 18.048 potpeRe IND Jo UOREAIPMy (ews PUB eaUWeS UORSALedNS ANUMUIOD

JO UoHEIONED 40} VoNad! SIMA JO Adoo.e YIM ‘seIded e anss| O} paidasip Aqalsy ase NOA

SUNOD PIES JO 41819 OU OL

“poqep pue paubis aBpni avy eu eveopnipe
©} uoyow ay) 0} payoene sem seideo & ans} o} 1:9!9 USIP Ly BuROOUP JapIO UE ‘ASE SIM) U|

voneonddy

Z'seideo e Guinss1 ojo & Bujouassja4 asnpaodid JeUNIID JO 2pOD oy) noyBro.tg suoIsiAasd SNOUEA
‘UyMm juays|stIOD Ose SI yNsas SIU “LO'EZ "WE ‘Ddd “WHID ap00 “xe 9, OBpnf ayy Jo UONDaNIP BUN IE
Hap & Aq JO “Te B10}0q PU Hed J0 JUBURIWWLOD Jaye SEO e Jo LON
© Aq panssi, 51 7eu) UM Se SeIdeo e SOLYEP YOIUM ‘aNpad01d [BUILD JO BPOD SEX] BUN JO EZ
Jeideyd UI seideo jo uoruyep aiqeondde ay) yum sHodwoo UoIsnOUCO SIM} JEU BIOU osje OM “panss
‘Ayenioe $1 seideo yy YOIUM Ye @Wwh Bu) SUIeWOL JUaWA:INbeL seided ain 0) adsas WIM poUad aUIN
quenajas awn ‘shu | “ammetsi697 ay

Buiaey pNoo ay} jo aBpni

dope sem uoisinoid AioMEIS aly 210}9q }! paride am se ‘(y)S
onDes ‘2+ Zp SIoRIY FaidJaqU! 0} enUNUOD [IM 2M g'UOHEDYIpOU jnoUWM airy PaUOIYse)-AjeroIpNI sno
J0 UoHeoyspoo s.esme}si697 alg pue ‘oIdo) simj UO MeJaseO po}dnueyUIUN pUE SNOUIUNIOA JNO Uo peseg

yreimels oui Jepun sjuers Gue66uy yuersias au) ave seideo ayy Jo aouenssy ain pue aieaipnipe

©} vow ayy jo Buy aig yeUp poziseydwe eney aM aSeo YoeO UI pue ‘sased Jayo Jo Jaquinu

8 Ul UoIsnjoUCD ales etn PaYde/ aAEU aM "PGS 1e PZ'M'S 008 ‘Uo}SOUeT ‘pouad yeUN Jo uoNesIdKa

au) 210}9q panssi sem seideo oy} pue paly sem LoH|eGo/d @yoREL 0} UONOW ay, ‘paildxe ApEaIIE

ey uoisiuadns AyunUWOD Jo Pouad si4 YENoUNTe ‘asnedag AyIN6 wy aieIpnipe o} UoRoIpsuN! pexDe|

noo feUn au eM WIE; suede ow pairuano aM “aneMo}y “(pIOA Sem UOISMadns AyUNUILICD

squeyedde ot Burjona! 1uaw6pni aun rey Gurpnjauco pue Aleun Sem aVeoIpNIpe OF

Bury 49}e] By Je YONs VoIsedns AyUNWILUCD Jo WEI B4y PaljO} SeIdeo B Jo eoUENss! Aa

waunbue s.areis 24) Bune!) (€Z64 “ddy “wyD *xeL) 91g ‘StS PZ'M'S 00S ‘a/eIS “A AayOD

We PZ'M'S 008 "Uo}s6ue7 BUN!) GOL 18 PC

‘seideo & anss| sy9p UISIP ayy LOY:
'5950] HN0D yeu uo}s6ue7 Ut

"9889 stip Ut poyuasasd suonsanb yeuoRoIpsunl ayy Uo annonasUL

“seideo oly Jo eouenssy Ajewn ou 01 adsas YUNA

2q 0} (y)g uoRoas ‘21°ZP aloIsy Jo UoNdope a4) a40}9q SjuaUIasINbaJ asoUs Jo SuoNEyesdseyU!
Ano puy am ‘dolsimadns AyunuUoD 0} yoadses YM OIN4 JeUONDIPSUA{ Pauo|Yse)-Ayeroipn!
‘S4nog sit pay!poo aumye}si627 oj esnedag ‘p] ‘pouad UOISINJadns-A|UNLILICD S]UEPUd}9p OY)

B32 [eA



le. Saine v. State,
); Treadaway v. State,
202 S.W. 322 (1918),

Although minor variations in the wording of the required constitutional and statutory language, such as
adding the word "the" before the word “authority’, have been held to be immaterial, Morris v. State,

3txcases: 3

(©2015 Matthew Bender & Company, inc., a member ofthe LexisNexs Group. All ights reserved. Use ofthis product is subject to
‘he restrictions and terms and conditions ofthe Matthew Bender Master Agreement.



CTIA

AWS MOVWWET/ by -€4-LIC\ OK
P- €3-U €\ yoVik

ssa GNCos
ASK -WELTAD \v-Ca- UCD IK

wowa/By J2152W\ J9pU9g MaUIREW OU} JO SUOIPPUCO PUE StLUOI PuE SUOROPSE! aut
‘1 afans 5} yonpoxd sun Jo asp “pauesa: sWBY ny “dnodD SHONNSEOT OU) Jo saquow e "oUt ‘AuEdWIOD 9 J9pUOG MOUTEW SLOZD

TEV DH NICS

z Sosvoxig

‘4q pue aureu au) u, 20UvaWWwOD jsnlu YoHEUO}U! Ue Jo ]UEUO!pU! UE Te\R Pay U9eq BuO} SEU }]

4 /SEX@ J0 2121S @ULL Jo AoUINE Aq pue eweU OM UI, ‘eoUELILHOD EUS Ht
“ -saysinbes Buymojjos ot Sey 1! }! UB!OYJNS powssap aq PEYS UAW!
ssopinosd ‘ued UI “dD'O'WA 2012 UV

«Sex 1 J0 8181S aU Jo AuOUINE

vounsasoid a4) 124) aBal}e 0} partes 1! asneDaq aANOojop Ajeye} SEM YOREUUOJU! OY) TEU $1 WUre|dWOD
sJauonnad au "voReuojul AuoI94 e 0} Ayn paid pue Ain{ pues6 e Aq JaUNDIPUI Paniem JOUORNIEd
“apise 198 $Z// “ON @sNeD

tu uawSpn| au aney o} wy annua 0} se seouenbesucd [eieje100 oneib AnusIoYINS sasod Bulpascoid
quonbasqns @ ul juewysiund eoueyue 0} uoHaINUOD o4A Jo asN paUaTEa:Ly OU} TEU BUE PIOA S|
Lonoauoo oWn yeu) sHOSse JoUONNEd oY “AIUNOD JONIed Jo UNOD IOUISIC PIE OWN UI GZLL "ON osNE)
ur'L261 ‘Sz Areruge uo euenyuews jo uoIssessod jo asuayo ain jo payoauod sem souoMiad ou

“d' D'D'VA'ZO'LL BY Jo SuoIsHosd oy) Jepun jyBnoIg BuIpasoo1d UONOIAUOD IS0d © SI SIU. -
NOINIdO {iE1 Pz'M’s 689}

uowurdo
ATWO 2hq vod
uowwido.
<rasc-7 BATDOIaD ree UEICuIoD e/SoahuaNSUnuaM KOlRIENS jeu InMelDoDaAbaITe

a yfeuajewWu) due Sexe | jo S}eIs OY) UI LOEULOjU! Jo JUAUUTO!pur Ue SulUUIBeq
2) sbenBuey ‘uo\me}s pue }euonmnsuca pasinbas By) Jo BuIpJOM ay) WI SUONEUEA sou YBNOUNTY

x
8% ydouieinbonyeuonrinstioa eia:eyqesuadsipul s! aBenBue|
‘Aq pue eeu au) u) apew S111 784) Sunes hq eousUIUIOD ysnU UOREULIOJU! UE JO WEUND!PU Ue ‘SEXA} Ul

syueun21puy < syuewns}sul A1o}eSNo9Y < asNpEdd1d MET [EUILD
lessiuisig < sjuawnsysuy Asopesn20y < ainpeoole @ MET /OUILD

siueuDIpU) < suewRSUY AsoLeSN22y < a/npE20Id B MET [UID

‘SEXO J0 3181S

ain Jo Ayvounne Aq pue eweu ou) u epew s1 y yeUY Sunes Aq eouaUsWOD [EUS 1 “s]UBUIEUINDaL VERSIE au
‘SaysHes }! J USIOWINS pawieEp oq |!e4S JaUND!pU UE ‘ZO'LZ "UE “UUY “201d "WUD @poD xe o}jUENSINg

sjueuoipuy < swewnAsul Asoyesn22y < anpe2did % MET [UID

P- Eg - Bie!

‘wowoasBy s01seyy Jopuag MOUREW O19 Jo suORPUOD puB sul) puE SUOFUISO! out
‘01 29/qns st nposd sw J0 957 -pansosay StYBu iy “dna! SKENSHOT atp Jo Z9qWOLL E “OUI ‘AUEDWOD 9 JOpUOR MAMNEW $102 O

1 SOSBOXIE
abesgoun yo. p:pussgovad 8 ‘Sup suieBE'S) esu9yo; Su bene ie BBS n py
us ue sete aS Aims Sees sue ae sie

‘hes Sur 1o;Aownne' uy BUREAU? ae oe seabchd plies
MOIAIOAO [e19U99 < SJHOUINNSU| AJOLSN29Y < B1NPODOIe B MET [EUILLED
‘seioupeeH SIxaNsixe7

quenbasans @ ut uonnoasoud aun UayM “BUenKLeW Jo UoISsessod Jo payoINuoD sem JUOIIIOd :MZIASAO

jeunes seis

AMVININNS 3SVO

—

‘BIS &u) 0) "UNsny “AY s.81815 “USeNNH fleqod “yesunog
‘Aun0d Yap Woy uoREoNddy 1eUI6UO,

Avoysiys tons ‘voRBEuO; yi eLOHPS

6Z64 ‘te 4890190
99929 ON

Olt SI day =u. {x01 661i .M'S 68S
swaes ‘SavadavvNINnEOLuNOS|
‘wedoog Bre jalueg owt



ind sentence the defendant, although defendant might later obtain relief in the form of a
constitutional violation. In contrast, if a defendant confesses and is convicted at trial

(citing Garcia, 596 S.W.2d at 527).

This Court's decision in Ex parte Sledge, 391 S.W.3d 104, 108 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013), which was
handed down after Townsend, also elucidates the difference between Townsend and the instant case.
In Sledge, the applicant did not appeal his conviction, but filed an initial writ application seeking to
obtain relief, which was denied. Later, he brought a successive writ application arguing that that trial
court lost jurisdiction to adjudicate him guilty and revoke his deferred-adjudication community

factual basis upon which to justify this Court's consideration of his subsequent writ /d,
see Tex. Code Crim: Proc.‘art: 11.07. § 4. We rejected the applicant's allegation that
We discovered the factual basis for his claim until after he filed his initial'postconviction
‘writ application because he could have leaned of the factual basis for relief he cited in his subsequent
application through the exercise of due diligence. See Sledge, 391 S.W.3d at 106-07 (stating that “itis,
readily apparent that the applicant could have easily obtained the information before now, just as he
did for the purpose of developing his current post-conviction writ application”). And although the

applicant in Sledge could not raise his claim in a subsequent writ application). See Sledge, 391
S.W.3d at 106-09, 111.

In sum, we hold that Townsend is not applicable to jurisdictional claims raised in an initial writ
application because, absent legislation to the contrary (such as the statute discussed in Sledge), we
have held that a lack of jurisdiction renders a judgment void and that claims challenging a court’s lack
of jurisdiction are cognizable in an initial writ application. However, we caution individuals seeking
habeas relief in a subsequent writ application that Sledge continues to bar an applicant from obtaining
relief on a jurisdictional claim in a subsequent application if the applicant cannot overcome applicable
procedural bars.1

Laches

‘The State argues that laches should apply to Applicant's claim because she voluntarily absconded
from the jurisdiction of the court to avoid serving her sentence. See Ex parte Perez, 398 S.W.3d 206
(Tex. Crim. App. 2013). It also asserts that laches should bar our consideration of Applicant's claim
because “itis highly unlikely that the trial court or any ofits personnel, or the deputy clerks involved,
‘would retain a distinct memory of something as routine and commonplace as fle-marking of a
document and issuance of a warrant after three or four years."

In Perez, this Court revised its approach to laches by abandoning the more permissive federal laches
‘standard in favor of the Texas common-law definition of laches. See Ex parte Perez, No. AP-76,800,

Itxcases 3

{© 2015 Matthew Bender & Company: Inc..a member ofthe LexisNexis Group. Al rights reserved, Use of this producti subject othe
restrictions and tes and conditions of the Mathew Bender Master Agreement,

2014 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1509, *7 (Tex. Crim. App. Oct. 8, 2014). Under the common-law
standard, courts consider the totality of the circumstances, including the reasons for delay in seeking
relief, the missing people or faded memories of people material to the case, loss of evidence and trial
records, the State's diminished ability to retry a defendant, and the State's interest in finality. 2014
Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1509 at “9.

The doctrine of laches does not bar Applicant's claim because the State was not prejudiced by
her tardy filing of her writ application.

In this case, however, while Applicant admittedly absconded from the jurisdiction and did not file her
initial writ application imately five years after she was adjudicated guilty and sentenced, no
‘evidence or trial recor been lost. And the State cannot retry Applicant if she prevails on her
claim, because the trial court had

memories and missing people is without merit because the
documents in the record end this Court's tegal analysis. Therefore, after considering the entire record
and the totality of the circumstances, we hold that laches does not apply to Applicant's claim because
the State was not prejudiced.

Article 42.12, Section §(h)

‘We now tum to the merits of Applicant's claims and the reasons for which we filed and set this case
for submission:

whether, when the trial court signs the motion to adjudicate and directs the district clerk to issue
‘capias within the period of community supervision, but the motion is file-stamped by the clerk and
the pre-revocation warrant issued after the expiration of the period of community supervision, the
‘rial court retains jurisdiction to proceed to adjudication under Article 42.12, Section 5(h)
‘Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Ex parte Moss. 2014 Tex. Crim. App. Unpub. LEXIS 417, 2014
WL 1512955, at *1

Section: 5(h), was added to the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court
rt to have jurisdiction to adjudicate the guilt of a defendant who was on

In 2003, the 78th Legislature codified this Court's holdings with respect to when a trial court retains
jurisdiction to adjudicate a defendant on deferred-adjudication guilty beyond the expiration of that

defendant's period of supervision in Article 42.12, .
ch. 250, § 1, 2003 Tex. Gen. Laws 1158, 1158. Article 42.12, Section 5(h) states that,

‘A court retains jurisdiction to hold a hearing under Subsection (b) and to proceed with an
adjudication of quit, regardiess of whether the period of community supervision imposed on the
defendant has expired, i before the expiration the attorney representing the state files a motion to
proceed with the adjudication and a capias is issued for the arrest of the defendant Tex. Code
Crim. Proc. art. 42.12, § 5(h). Thus, the requirement that the capias be issued before the
expiration of the supervision period was carried over into the statute. See Garcia v. State, 387
‘$.W.34 20, 23 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). Likewise, the Legislature also included in the same
‘statutory provision the requirement that the motion to adjudicate be filed before the expiration of

Itxcases 4

1D 2015 Matthew Bender & Company In, member ofthe LexisNexis Group, All igh reserved. Use ofthis product is subject 10 the
‘stictions and terms and conditions of the Matthew Bender Master Agreement



TA THe TEKS COURT OF CRIM a4
|  (0cKan-8 3-6 gfieCENED a :
EX PATE THs LW Ne 1 Ore RE Re

oe . AbetAcosta,Glerk 5”
Perrine’ Vat ol. Noi OF NVM
ANY VIKK RRAUUUNY VN BVCTECELON TO

OENDAL OF 1OCKIAII-LA-G VAY LON AIDE COC

TRIAL TWWOGE VAN ATO OF TAB

Sec stad P_Ads&1 AOSSMU WK KZ
ae SN . ass. ae line FRO Me

= ao oa Ae Oe Ae
CDMS. NU PK SE PETORONG TO WE -

| My COUT TO LIB GUAULY CONST HES
PRN SE FLEAS |

 Ob4. GOS SI Sao ( (S72) :

PETITION OBIT CE 10 THs COUKT AD
vf LAW CURKKS TUKNING 4 LIN EYETO
TKK. QUE PAQUESS VAN AOCESS TO. cOuietd
UEDLATON 5 BEING CONIUCTEN VAY GAUETT.

OW COUNTY TRIM OUDKE LON NDE viz
( WADT COURT
- DUK TD TWE ACIS. OF OWMESSCONS VI
COMETS SBN) 4-7 MK UW CKK IO vin
COUT AYARQUING OF LONNTE cat Vie-
USC OF al¥tce AN OtSCZETLON TD

ARIEMIZARILY OISKKGUKOING £2... 4 -
\Sa_ REGUSAL PRC, oe



+ WWW VIA G3u3 A730 «

bSSZZ XL ‘NOLSSA1VD

bOOl SLINS LASYLS HLES 009

AQvOu Move

ALNNOSD NOLS3SATWS AANYOLLY LOILSIG

44319 ‘eISOdY jeqy
(0)-{€)p 985 '2O'LL YW ‘DOUd WIND 3GOO “X3L ‘sndioo seaqey jo
UM @ 10} UoNeo!|dde yuenbasgns sy) Jepio UayM JNOYYIM Passiwsip sey yNOD eyL
Sh-SLL'ES-UM PES-LIZLNDOL “ON 3D “UL SNAVM SVWOHL ‘JONSYO14
- svoz/ezit

TILL SVXAL ‘NILSAV ‘NOLLV.LS TOLIAVO ‘80€71 XOM 'O'd
40D AT1g SYEL AO SIVAddY TVNINTYD 40 LINOD WOU FILON TWVIDISIO

)-< & LIGIYOM)


6

‘Although the word capias is also defined in Chapter 43 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. that
definition is not applicable in this case because that definition pertains only to enforcing judgments.
‘See Tex. Code Crim. Pr 3.015 (defining capias and capias pro fine as they are used in
‘Chapter 43). However of capias from Article 23.01(1) is proper because the capias in
question was issued it the direction of the judge,” and it was issued to force Applicant to
appear in court for a “trial” in the form of a revocation hearing. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 23.01
‘The judgment revoking Applicant's community supervision was not entered until April 5, 2006, and the
capias that issued for her arrest to enforce that judgment of conviction when she fai
in is govemed by Article 43.015(1) defining a capias for purposes of executing a judgment.
7

See, €.9., Tex. Code Crim. Proc. arts. 2.195,
8

Because we conclude that the capias did not timely issue, we need not reach the question of whether
the motion to adjudicate was timely filed.

16(c), 23.03(a), 23.031, 23.05(4).

Itxcases 7

12015 Matthew Bender & Company: tne..a member ofthe LexisNexis Group. Al ight reserved. Use ofthis product is subject to the
restrictions and terms and conditions ofthe Matthew Bender Master Agreement



[Ok 836 3

Notice:
PUBLISH
Editorial Information: Prior History

‘ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. IN CAUSE NO. 20203 IN THE 86TH DISTRICT
‘COURT FROM KAUFMAN COUNTY.Ex parte Moss, 2014 Tex. Crim. App. Unpub. LEXIS 417 (Tex. Crim,
App., Apr. 16, 2014)

FOR APPELLANT: Taryn Davis, Kaufman, TX.
rosecutor, Dallas, TX.

Opinion

Applicant, Jecia Javette Moss. pled guilly to aggravated assault and was placed on
deferred-adjudication community supervision for five years on October 4, 2000. Her community
supervision was subsequently revoked, and she was sentenced to confinement in a state penitentiary.
‘She now argues that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to revoke her supervision and adjudicate her
guilty because the motion to adjudicate was not timely fled and the capias was not timely issued. We
will grant relief.

Facts

The day Applicant's period of community supervision expired-October 3, 2005-the State took a motion
to adjudicate and an order directing the district clerk to issue a capias for Applicant's. arrest directly to
the judge, who signed both of them. Applicant's supervision was subsequently revoked, and she was °
‘sentenced to twelve years’ confinement and a $1,500.00 fine.

‘On April §, 2006, at the time of sentencing. the judge notified Applicant that he would allow her to
remain at large for tweive days before turning hersetf in at the Kaufman County Sheriff's Office to
carry out her sentence. During that time, Applicant filed a notice of appeal. However, instead of
reporting to the Kaufman County Sheriff's Office on April 17. 2006, to be taken into custody and
continue the appellate process, she absconded from the jurisdiction. Subsequently, the State asked

lixcases 1

12018 Matthew Bender & Company. Ine..a member ofthe LexisNexis Group. All ights reserved, Ue of this produc is subject to the
restrictions and terms and contons ofthe Matthew Bender Master Agreement,

_. the Dallas Court of Appeals to dismiss Applicant's appeal, which it did on July 25, 2006. See Moss v.
State, No. 05-06-00556-CR, 2006 Tex. App. LEXIS 6470, 2006 WL 2053491 (Tex. App.-Dallas July
25, 2006, no pet.) (mem. op.) (not designated for publication). Applicant was arrested more than three
years later on November 13, 2009.

x Parte Townsend

Inits findings of fact and conclusions of law. the convicting court found that, even if the motion to
adjudicate was not timely filed or the capias timely issued, Applicant's claim is procedurally barred
because she could have raised her jurisdictional issue on direct appeal had she not absconded from
the jurisdiction, We believe the court is referring to this Court's decision in Ex parte Townsend, 137 j
App. 2004), in which this Court held that, when an applicant has an adequate |
the appellate process, but that applicant does not make use of hat remedy,

the clerk to issue the capias) was in that record. In
her writ application and the capias was, thereafter, included in the writ record (by order. .
See Ex parte Moss, WR-76,635-03, 2014 Tex. Crim. App. Unpub. LEXIS 417, 2014 WL 1512955
(Tex. Crim. App. Apr. 16, 2014) (per curiam) (not designated for publication).

However, Applicant's claim is diferent from the one raised in Townsena, in that she is alleging

Itxcases 2
{©2015 Mauthew Bender & Company. Ic. a member ofthe LexisNexis Group. All sights reserved. Use ofthis product is subject othe

resrictions ad tenns and conditions ofthe Matthew Bender Master Agreement,



WONG NIL TMT POLDRQUEK PUT LSS
Dy Olt 00CBxC% avAAauien TSSUL NV S,:

ania LOUZiAI-£ 3 3 - -¢ TO:
Ee vr). THAS COUT HINS HAUG INADA

- sUVIKM VME MOSS .
ON XU A. AGVia scueneg TE?

jo Ne
er Vd WOSS, OVITE. MOK, :
<o4 Ni 2d I _\Q

TES <QUAT OS PEING arr
- SMIOCCDAL NORE OE OF Ae SON
WAI ADSS- AYZOUIN ui ARON,

[45 Suu P45, 450 CK. m7 ALS 200 4)
See tah 2c (NINE RDEV 70GG ST sd to Sued
yy. HAUT: | ST VES ASS 3)

Sat Dao
S DUC PIROOCSS GUTS Wee
HE, OES NOt KE GKVE moc Quinte OTEK
Of MASKING 0 TKN SETTING. LOE ew.
‘ A QVYE2 St Salad Bik PPL CTY. CesT 8 4
Nd ViNiZ RACAL, (Sa CULE MUN
YATE NCKIURES OCIRIK YI WK OF IAL

PRX .
aa) Caer CAN NOT CONTENWE TO TUleNi4
ONO KK TO wit (yeni UNUAWEUL-

ES ONWANT MNIZ_ALLOL! UL) THe, TRAM COURT
OQOIZ5 VING Wrenn ae

seu CORIO Shaw Qe
| 4 Dey | SAAS



sex A A 2K COTING Tk: Le.
 COMOUCL ciANion) 2. Me VATS TS TER: Give.
Cave. Anky Tite 2s SUT .G Ary > CURIA SRR
AS UIE MOTE IN QUK ISIS O4INTOU RE ~
CRIGING THE INSTANT CASE DF 4 TRIAL |
eC QU KVMS Ta CAMALY LYM THK STaEC-
TUES VMNNTOOI DN AM Lea) AU VACIIOAS
TAICE, YoY THK SURE SUSCQUNT TO SU CT VIO
~ fabian VRE ATO, VROSSOAtA qu Niuad £93,
CUAL VESTON COUNTY THEO TE Ges ) Ganants
vik U0. td. 84, _ oF
ORR I MNTZE, 88S SUlad Wo0c Uy
Ar WA 0 1I4), TAL SVIDAES ID Nor CUVY
— reeasow 10 TRNORE THA UAW.
TULS TS WHAT TIES COU IROL OF
THE MIMICEVIS TRMAL Couer TS AQ OS Ton

OK ISA.

SK EXOT SiMe aie a Sad STE AK

| REWIVINIZING CASE OUE TO 189
yah Ich SIS, COU HAUZ KXUE
SVL VIKACE CNG S MOLY TO HUES |
exis COKIMUS AACE AOINGS —
LAcKlati7 8 Sy a) Su CVE WAOSS
Lada (pA. cil 2 A014) 7 VM. }

~ “eprInG NI Gs, St. Loc ial I-$3-3 -4
PerDrDOwe PEKSENTEO UOT TUDAWANT

o .



PADS COURT ES NEU AWC THT. THES
JubRes nagaes IN JOCKZIAII-8 3-4, “OCIA
4-8 2"> Keer 4- 20s," vnia 1 0d2-

Ble 3-0 ake AKE JO PEITATONCK,

pM ELLA US KAOMSAC WLOTTONS ut.
UES HACE COKUS® AO TLE TRIM

TMOG CHICAS COUK) FALUCO TO WUE

ON THRSE WLIO TO REUSE: SEX,

WON SSEAWL ARS, EXMMGDT AA_ATVICMA2AHES

OMEN WKESATE Uti KE OULSAL LOT
OM PREGUIKIQUESS OF THE AROCRIMIRIL

_ sMericbanty OF THA VON, HAS ON LYTHE

“ito Ta WOT DY OK oR TW WitYS TO

TURE iS Sb SEQUCUTE TS Suc ACOA
Tee \ QU, rd. 23. COG ILE
7 se aT) CUS £S VIEL
Vie THT THIS IUIGGES PIAELTIZIK V IAN

nid TALS Cou D
THA THK QUT { CUS SON THT mM
MARCA LSA ViOON 5 NWT Vw Na


C lack / Cour.
Ol-11- QQKAAK HZ COU FS Fri.

Re leoean: 33-3
Lockian-sa~ 4
| Youre WwWke THAT 0 DNWIATES WH
ware TN Trsspche CANTY iN THY
 DNTES HAS ATIURN CYS yer V4
ATTY. Gund vp? ONT? OY THK QUAT

ON ReYUKT OF Me suit To
Emiang / Ad" en can cluscans OF
THESE SMX SOUR LIKE

lyut ON

or Qur ne my No el

— Sp) HMaRGING MIAO TOW T
| Vier ldey, 45-014 @OAwPp

WY mM
OK 15.5, FRE CMT AAS) \5.Q5@)-

TUES CQUATY APPT VAN ATTY anv 20s Nr
Ayo) THK STMT TD 0 FINDINGS
vino MATS 7 AN CULSTAN OF Wr VS
Cyt SION COUNTY

BQ QUE THESS Q dain eehief

SSW 1LQ47 CAING 93, IS. OS