## IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

NO. WR
- 88,008
- 03 EX PARTE JUAN ENRIQUE SARQUIS JR. , Applicant ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS CAUSE NO. 2013
- DCR
- 02588
- B IN THE 138 TH DISTRICT COURT FROM CAMERON COUNTY
Y EARY , J., filed a concurring opinion in which S LAUGHTER , J., joined . CONCURRING OPI NION Applicant was convicted in 2014 of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and sentenced to twelve years’ imprisonment. Applicant filed an application for writ of habeas
corpus in the county of conviction in 2021 , alleging his plea was involuntary

. T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. art. 11.07. Today, the Court remands this application to the trial court to further develop the record . I agree this application should be remanded , and so I join the Court’s order doing so. But I write separately, as I have previously, 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 Sepeda , No. WR

- 92,711

- 01, 2021 WL 2450089 (Tex.SARQUIS

— 2 Crim. App. June 16, 2021) (per curiam) (not designated for publication) (Yeary, J., concurring) ( reviewing Ex parte Smith ’s holding and the principles that justify a trial
court’s sua sponte authority to consider laches )

. The doctrine of laches ought to be considered in a case like this one

. Applicant ’ s trial occurred in 2014 , but this writ application was not filed using the proper 11.07 form until almost seven years later , 1 and nearly two years after trial counsel ha d passed away

. Applicant may very well have an explanation for the overall delay , but neither he nor any of his retained habeas counsel have adequately explained it yet

. 2
Consistent with this Court ’ s precedent, the trial court may, sua sponte , give Applicant the opportunity to explain the reasons for the delay

. It may also 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. And ultimately, the trial court may include find ings 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FILED : December 8, 2021 DO NOT PUBLISH

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)).

2 Applicant previously filed his

- 01 and

- 02 writ applications in 2018 and 2021, respect ively, but both were dismissed as non

- compliant for failing to use the proper form. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 73.1

. For each prior application, the Court notified both Applicant and his then

- retained habeas counsel by mail (dated Feb. 7, 2018, and Feb. 24, 2021, re spectively) explaining in what way each application was non

- compliant.