Case Name: Ex parte Roberto Moreno RAMOS
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1998-07-15
Citations: 977 S.W.2d 616
Docket Number: No. 35938-01
Parties: Ex parte Roberto Moreno RAMOS.
Judges: which McCORMICK, Presiding Judge and MANSFIELD, PRICE and HOLLAND, Judges, joined.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 977
Pages: 616–621

Head Matter:
Ex parte Roberto Moreno RAMOS.
No. 35938-01.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.
July 15, 1998.

Opinion:
ORDER
WOMACK, Judge,
delivered the order of the Court,
which McCORMICK, Presiding Judge and MANSFIELD, PRICE and HOLLAND, Judges, joined.
The applicant seeks post-conviction habeas corpus relief from a judgment imposing a sentence of death. The statute which was enacted in 1995 to regulate the procedure for these cases requires the application to be filed within 180 days. See Code of Criminal Procedure article 11.071, § 4(a). The convicting court may find good cause to file the petition as late as 90 days thereafter, but "an applicant cannot establish good cause for untimely filing of an application filed after the 91st day after the applicable filing date." Id., § 4(f).
In this ease the convicting court found good cause to allow late filing. It entered an order on May 22,1997 "grant[ing] an extension of 90 days to file an application for writ of habeas corpus, until August 22, 1997." Record at 231. The order was internally inconsistent, because a period of 90 days would have ended on August 20, while a period which ended on August 22 would have been 92 days long. The applicant filed his application on August 22. The convicting court has found that the applicant acted in good-faith reliance on the order of May 22. Record at 273. The State recommended that, based on the equities, the convicting court address the merits of the application. See Record at 1096. The convicting court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law on the merits of the application.
Literally applied, Article 11.071, Section 4(f) would make it impossible for the applicant to establish good cause for his untimely filing. In these circumstances, in which the applicant relied in good faith on a mistaken calculation which was entered by the convicting court without objection, we believe that such a literal application would deny the applicant the due course of the law of the land. See Texas Constitution, article I, § 19.
Two separate opinions say there is no difference between this case and Ex parte Smith, 977 S.W.2d 610 (Tex.Cr.App.1998). See post at 618 (Baird, J., concurring) ("the identical situation . presenting the identical issue"); post at 618-619 (Overstreet, J., dissenting) (finding a "common thread" in the cases and "inconsistency" in their dispositions). They ignore the crucial fact which distinguishes the cases: Ramos met an incorrectly-calculated deadline that the court had entered and on which he relied in good faith; Smith did not. See Ex parte Smith, supra, 977 S.W.2d at 610 ("There is no claim that the applicant [Smith] relied in good faith on an improper order of the trial court. Cf. Ex parte Ramos ").
A concurring opinion says that in Ex parte Smith, supra, we held that "a habeas court . lost jurisdiction when the application was untimely," and therefore we cannot have jurisdiction in this ease. See post at 618 (Baird, J., concurring) (citing Ex parte Smith, supra ). The dismissal of the application in Ex parte Smith was not on account of a want of jurisdiction. This Court has jurisdiction of Smith's and Ramos's applications. We held in Ex parte Smith that the statute which regulates the exercise of our jurisdiction requires the dismissal of the late-filed application. In the case now before us, we hold that, on these specific facts, the regulatory statute cannot be constitutionally applied to require the dismissal of the application. Therefore we shall address the merits of the application.
Five claims involving jury selection and a claim involving the court's charge to the jury at the guilt stage of the trial have already been raised and rejected on the direct appeal from this conviction. See Ramos v. State, 934 S.W.2d 358 (Tex.Cr.App.1996). They will not be addressed on habeas corpus.
Two claims concern the court's charge to the jury at the punishment stage of the trial. These claims should have been, but were not, raised on the appeal. Habeas corpus will not lie as a substitute for appeal. See Ex parte Gardner, 959 S.W.2d 189, 198-200 (Tex.Cr.App.1998). The claims will not be addressed.
The application is denied.
BAIRD, J., filed a concurring opinion.
OVERSTREET, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
KELLER, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
MEYERS, J., dissented without opinion.
. "No citizen of this State shall be deprived of life, liberty, property, privileges or immunities, or in any manner disfranchised, except by the due course of the law of the land." Tex. Const. art. I, § 19.