Court Opinion

ID: 7804367
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-08-29 02:12:07.606754+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:29:50.371315
License: Public Domain

In the Court of Criminal
           Appeals of Texas
                           ══════════
                          No. WR-92,072-02
                           ══════════

             EX PARTE JARROD DERAY PHILLIPS,
                              Applicant
  ═══════════════════════════════════════
   ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
 CAUSE NO. 114-0953-14-A IN THE 114TH DISTRICT COURT
                FROM SMITH COUNTY
  ═══════════════════════════════════════

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

      Applicant was convicted in 2014 of injury to a child or disabled
person with intent to commit serious bodily injury and sentenced to 50
years’ imprisonment. He did not appeal.
      In April of 2020, Applicant filed an application for writ of habeas
corpus in the county of conviction. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07. In
                                                               PHILLIPS – 2

his application, he alleges he is actually innocent and also that his trial
counsel induced him to plead guilty.
       Today, the Court remands this application to the trial court 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 plea hearing occurred in 2014, but this writ application
was not filed until 6 years later.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 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

       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)).
                                                          PHILLIPS – 3

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:                           August 24, 2022
DO NOT PUBLISH