Court Opinion

ID: 2811590
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-06-25 07:18:23.424079+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:26:51.007762
License: Public Domain

In The

                               Court of Appeals
                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                               ________________

                              NO. 09-12-00505-CR
                               ________________

                      THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant

                                        V.

                ERIC MICHAEL HEILMAN, Appellee
____________________________________________________________________

                On Appeal from the County Court No. 2
                       Jefferson County, Texas
                       Trial Cause No. 285580
____________________________________________________________________

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

      The trial court granted habeas corpus relief to Eric Michael Heilman. State v.

Heilman, 413 S.W.3d 503, 505 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2013), rev’d, Ex parte

Heilman, 456 S.W.3d 159 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015). Heilman’s application for writ

of habeas corpus asserted that his plea was involuntary and he had received

ineffective assistance of counsel. Id. Before the hearing on Heilman’s application,

the habeas court requested briefs from the parties on the issue of whether the

prosecution was barred by the statute of limitations. Id. at 506. The trial court’s

                                         1
order stated that the basis for granting habeas relief was the trial court’s

determination that Heilman’s prosecution was barred by the statute of limitations.

Id. The State appealed, and this Court affirmed the trial court’s order. Id. at 509.

The Court of Criminal Appeals granted the State’s petition for discretionary review

and held that Heilman’s limitations defense was a forfeitable right and Heilman

had waived his right to assert a limitations defense, and the Court remanded the

case “to the court of appeals to assess Heilman’s other claims.” Ex parte Heilman,
456 S.W.3d at 160, 169.

      After the Court of Criminal Appeals remanded the case to this Court, we

gave the parties an opportunity to raise additional arguments, and the parties

declined to do so. The trial court has not yet addressed Heilman’s remaining

claims. In accordance with the mandate from the Court of Criminal Appeals, we

remand the cause to the trial court.

      REMANDED.

                                        ________________________________
                                               LEANNE JOHNSON
                                                     Justice

Submitted on May 27, 2015
Opinion Delivered June 24, 2015

Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.

                                          2