In the Court of Criminal 

Appeals of Texas

══════════

Nos. WR-73,419-03 & WR-73,419-04

══════════

EX PARTE CHARLES STEWART WALKER,

Applicant

═══════════════════════════════════════

On Applications for Writs of Habeas Corpus

Cause Nos. 636861-A and 636861-B in the 174th District Court

From Harris County

═══════════════════════════════════════

YEARY, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which SLAUGHTER, J., 

joined.

Applicant was convicted in 1993 of aggravated sexual assault and 

sentenced to fifty years’ imprisonment. The First Court of Appeals 

affirmed his conviction later the same year. Walker v. State, No. 01-93-

00163-CR, 1993 WL 471410 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 18, 

1993, no pet.). Applicant filed these two applications for writ of habeas 
WALKER – 2

corpus in the county of conviction in July of 2008 and April of 2010, 

respectively. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07. In these applications,

Applicant raises identical claims pertaining to the same conviction. He 

alleges actual innocence, ineffective assistance of trial and appellate 

counsel, and no evidence.

Today, the Court remands this application to the trial court on 

the ineffective assistance of counsel ground to further develop the 

record. I join the Court’s remand order. But I write separately 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 Bazille, ___ S.W.3d ___, No. WR-89,851-

02, 2022 WL 108348 (Tex. Crim. App. Jan. 12, 2022) (Yeary, J., 

concurring).

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

one. Applicant’s appeal was finalized in 1993, but these two writ 

applications were not filed until almost fifteen and seventeen years 

later, respectively.1 The record is also silent regarding circumstances 

that may excuse Applicant’s delay, and at least some explanation for the 

long delay in filing should be provided. Consistent with this Court’s 

precedent, the trial court “may sua sponte consider and determine 

whether laches should bar relief.” Smith, 444 S.W.3d at 667. If the trial 

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)). 
WALKER – 3

court does so, it must give Applicant the opportunity to explain the 

reasons for the delay and 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. Id. at 670. And ultimately, the trial court may include findings 

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 7, 2022

DO NOT PUBLISH