Court Opinion

ID: 4055338
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-09-29 06:58:39.01514+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:32:00.375780
License: Public Domain

)

     -~

                                                                        ()3j C)CIS-0~
          -•   _fij/9_~_j_O(Td_Ql5
                                               -.

                                                                                 -------
                                                                        RECEIVED IN
                                                                  G9URf-0F-GRIMINAl-APPEAI:S
                                                                         MAY-2-o-201§
               ~-L!LCE5.111-=...t--~,e I<
               ~-      - dA.Pld/L/41 4!1tJ&i&
                      Ql-                                             Abel Acosta, Cler!<
               J).J1.&x.L~!9:B_C.4/J$/6) L..:1z19_zt2jt)
               A~ IEY-JU) 1~'1 ll

                     ~:J!LA:wr~ ,ata.(i;ffi.Jil (_ 1/~JfJUc~
                         NJ/2 w~       eF /lJIJ~tJMill~ /
--                                                           .

                ~-A~ ~ieRJ~..~                                                  --

-·                          -
               -~elo::dJ_I}_(£Jk:e_&rtJIJ      fi..A$ILR2FF Qra. (Q:r;A-1/) c
               mQTIJ?FJJ £cg w~ Ot= /Ylt¥~fll~_w_& &_/gj rJVI                                  '

               :£/dt p!U)p~~-~ .47             JJ..tiZ   /?IYJ[)_&Je 7EJ}G.~

                p~~ f\Jeye. i}_~l}.'f__~ t= TH6 £Jt-t(!Jooc!<1 fi/ti4(.JIJ/I/JlU6
               -i~I(J~;&lZE&!_ /YJtJ$&:£J tD n-~e ~wr.tUCT t1~t<.
               .ot   -~td6     ~· rrBY4',j               fli5D.

               P~ler         (YJG    ~ TlJ.ii       ~/Pta    ef- (cLFttro. ~K
               ~\
                                                    -Jt:::ttG J~~~~
-·.            -~~-~uvk
                                               .    - Jb$2/ld ~.
                                             Jm [J/J~Jj ~Q Pil > JG
     ••
              ..       l5Arr:L~i/U)~C,_u,ooM                     ~.u!Jf • M
--~-=-·-~-~~-~~~-rl~-~-~~·~~--~-~~-~~-~~-~f~O~\~------~---~--~-~--~-~-~----------~--~~J ~
                                         R61flrDe.               J

--~-!-1---:~m2::,                           ~11/YJ ~tiJi4~ ~~-t::l~ ~re_._.-=--__,__~_ __
                                    i\J{)U.))
                       IR~FI:3'~   TD   tb1 {)d.J+TbR. RGLA-Il:>,e.. L.J A-c;o;71~ PtW 5€.        '

                     IL-1--rJ.te Fe~-rUC. s:fLq_~ d1J!Ij ;Jumf3t:l2dJ dtJ-u.1e
                   . lb).c /1~--a:b-11 AJ.Jf:J_&.~ '71!:.:J:..S [)tar;J/Li/1-l 1/p{)f.u.Arr.z,U
                    _!te/2 vJUT_ FJ.F fi)IJ-AJMmi.M _/lL.IJ&5Uif~ 1D 1/tur.cit:::. l (.lY( ·
                   .   ~~-rrbd .3Ca.) Qt:" :me~ ~                    DF {!ppll£/r//1{
                       ~P~u£~ ~Adb-~>6Hou)·~                                        ril~rr--
     •
                                                                      {h;Jd7fde;

                       I~.R~~-
                                                     ::r:
~-   :   --                                          :(   \\
                                                             :                 :,
__________-....!.\ =~t>\=-~-.-iAtn_f.~Wt),e{) C!LVYLtiD. LbCS-r.iJ ~ 6-3 o4o lj--=L=~---L.,(f~J~-~­
-~~-+·~.~ :LJ                         -n.fE.   .·~ bGJ)t~ttrmE:J.tr [;)~. ~~JiJttL
             ._ . b-u.6~_A.vo~ A,o~/2.f1¥e fJ~ .;k_, ul\:b~0t'J-AJ M ____
          .... . j~ AI 1 E~eJJJ::. .U..u;r)_dt,4 F-111, :!.ll!TR, J-IUL~7:5tl£ 1/e
                     ~s Z7_~.         .: _        :                   . .        :         ·..
       .;: ;:c.: :D~. q-1Q~..Lo~ _A~-r lJet:~E.m~_-3_>-~QL~ ·R &LA 7'6~ Fx:UsiJ
_ _...!..;...;
          •           ,

____·_.-~----~-llJ·~~ea-r:tckoA.i EM- i.JfJ.xf B..£)JH/JG716 Ck#U6 J 1.111._-_ _
----+!Wt:r=·              ~·:..:..~d.~~ Ri2.:SPer.JfJEJ.JT .W \JJJ-~ .~Ta8.:5. _ _____,. ,;. __

~-~·relo.LQ.t_iloow s~&~Jt~"'-JJ..;Qlo!5_R6~~+7b.e.                                  Rec.r:EtEll
                     IN~ t;)f~..:f:r;.l"[b;J                   QfJ.L(Q£M:4L   !LJJ.S~ h:&iJ
---+-"'!~"'-'-'14-~~~-J~ot~)-=--·----------~----

              Lflt                ~
                      () .cl Q.f__-    {'().4~\-( cX~~-ctat.:r f2~/2_e~
                     &l Qf':tel!:!.~ .Q f 7/dG ~t:}lej Pfll)Po::£!j f?Jii/i:I;zl~          (;)j:.

                     F~a, CeAJ~A.i5 oF                  L.Aw ftA-i{J Q_~ il~t:J F.r lE, ~
                     Jru.miJl::?IJ~:r_!;}iJ Lt?r;~-~~-c1QL.S~L-dauJJE.IER .;J.f!fr/J                '

                     bo&U'JU:Vu"(-S ·i-0~ AJQT ·file. ~mfJe/J QAJ TJ+e.,                                ---~

               '     ~~~ u~IT.L (Y)J~fd.CJAOl~rJ.oJ5 sDifl8 ¥& -b~~j LA-r£.

              ,,os LJ_,$@,_jJffJIL_QR/:I&. rr (! &;,dl:f :Jtl}~~71d~:
                   tl.a.~ ~ .6>l~J.'£!EEJ -rt:d_~R..GiDtJ~ /J ·Tk?.A-~ tJfo

  •
==fMAAS              fjl.L P~~JJ_g_~&~Y1nf612. t95N£>a.4n~tf I}IJ!IJ
                             tn:llf :flfflltLI:b:..3J#Z_CatggUill' &!2n:UJIIL
                     ifpU5JrfD~~J-.j t!f).()vlfiJetlJ  P~ 4 :r~. ~M &PJ,. PM)C..
                                       .          (   2
                                                      .... )          . '
            •
--\.~t)A..i ·w4>ct.s-r~J_D~~.__OF /Y)A-RGl-t :t\4J~~eR wt16 7!Jfi)/(~-­
~~---+=~~-fL_f$_{/dJ_,~/QJJ_ f.JtJRX( t!l.,_dl.OI:Q~KeL#TDR w.MY~ 7.1~71.=6~--
         ·~ f)~ ~11.111L l!tfJIJ.&Llb_b.AJ_fdAJ.j~ m ~eilf~
~~~-!-w=~"'"'-<
            ~·~·rn~s·-~ o~ CM_171PtJI1L .!lfJ~lJL.-s !Je~<:-;~-...==----
~-~-!JV-tlll R_e~T!XJ.4 .l LD'7 ~~r _Q~ ~-k~&15 ~Lt-6 ldab,___________
---+JJ)OV" t£_f{G_~I81 ·~.)'4 TM~-~le-ll=LL=-"\,_____ _ _ _ _~-

-·--C..                     RR>OOA.i bEA!I .

 ..·. ~.~4~tJtill C.IJ~                                 l'JAD:J:E:l,    .I:JJ   ~-/.!:lele    C!l&eJUT ,;JJ.Jo.ufti    &_ 12z;fe{J.fa_e.__/l_R7. I 1~4,_:_~-
                Q&s_Lf:f!!Xo~ro;T.

                                     \TI

                ~ V.rc2.L~ or: !knrlt-: ~ l.Di\               fJ.~ 'f'lt.E ~XA.S. (!fl!Je ~
                    -~~ ~~J ~/Q.6:
           I
    __3,Q.t.:zY6.J~6S'fe&08!/T tf:wl.A-rgfj_f}_~ l i.~·] .:f6Cr:t:b,J .
    _w   l;3(C) oF ·me ·r_~aG£k:J l!eDe D~ ~A14L PliX.I5Jui€£B~
         l~ ·m Pwv.aJG 11 ·&Po/ aP' 71:1e_{/p/JLr:.cfi11ZJd
           lltJe
               u).J;r i;:F ~-~-J-~IJJ~ -r~ll1fl.:n1ll.

            ~                 .                           .

      ..J.e:A   E~l~dflEWT liQ~ ·'- ~ T/-IG' ~ /I]J~JVKfJJd
           ~ '11J IJir~de ~ I l!-3i~-~Qf3e:_'1.PJ~_Wll.i~&_t-11_~ f'l:l c;r Tldfk.T
           IR&t>PoiJ_}J_~ tJ ~-d. &D.ef.;, brs~stJ-'7.#£ &tl_e_{j_.c .
    •         dr¥m£1JJ1t[_{}@Cl:J)_[i~ ~~eL1_;[jJ/Jk ~t:l;i;S_/1_
             m-rsM~itCQ.e_.oE ;.J7&i1£~_/3lf_iflifdfJP.VIJeu/., .
                                                                     J
                                                                                 .

                                              (2:f=)
    "

    -•   3.tU_ r-71:16_4_~-r_..1t;_t¥2_W'_w_&_tW~PiJGiielJ .r..s~tm[AJJS(i!Pt{
                     · ~
                                                                                           '

                 A.h
                 _(;).r_ - - Udd7;klJY/J@1
                              - --        -~ - -J~J-~.__J_ -~  -   - &IJ   - -~
                                                                      . - .6._{)

              ~At P&D..c.B/J.lt.~_l/_ra I_L&'/_~c;a;l)Ai 3~
               &Gl5i~_&~~e~IJI!Nv 7YJ~.LI!2/JJG!Jm7E-?!i -~
              W   YJ!/b_~I:Jf    8_F   ~(_ /J;~L..-IJ6    J:£ · · -
                                                            - -·-· - _71/(.b
              &~JJ..v{G$/JkR_~-~-eu:t}es TJ.J'JJ!_T JJJt&e!. ~&~ JL/O
              ~US.:5 'I/) &_R~~-i ,J;""           .   -
                                             f1J;t_~Tt32PIL. &_t~ a~ 7JJw ·TYe_L~w.s
                                             Li'nne::.
                                        ~~~------·~---
                                                         '·
                                                                                                                            r:r_~ -::fjk£_\5_

                                                                                                                                                ---

                                                                           .Jl1:.
                                             £., PR.e48f. @£ t..::rL~

                                                   ·w Wi:E.ePDI2.E..:)_e£_~::;~                 ~gQL.:()
                                                                                                     R.G..i.,;mr.L
                                             :5&lJ. /3Jwt1f:Mj
                                                  ~  _ ___      _ ~IS).
                                                                     ·- _. _)e~
                                                                             _       e~:J:Ee
                                                                                ,ig7_. _ . _ _CI____ -"(- i?G~_fJ.GST
                                                                                              :-atL(      _- _        C"

                                              !LE£~ ·~r J.J:~:G_f~~:bt:!Afl D.r::.D ~r!/?IIJt:Yittf
                                              ~atl.m-~!}~ .77) -7l:tci..~et &Pzl..ou-11. /lfJiefldJ
                                             ..~-      ( I.J_.£_e:8Sj~-4-
                                                                   ../     .~   .   £            ·. ;; A
                                                                             _x:gn_,(lczaf._T.Jf6_        ,q...,;.-
                                                                                                               c:. ~.
                                              LAJI31le    ·i9etJw<:L~_ ·~- JAt0 _8:_~ "§ldDI II?e inTM ~r

-.                                           ~           4-r.JSCokrZl:JAi :IAJ. ·~ Ei!!m_ !IAJ~-~-j_~- w4Y-
                                             ~~~MiEIJ_L_R~ l...rJ17)_/i. PMu..:J_E:f)£ gd_(k!)~ IJ"PflecF@LCo
                                             fi!tt~f6:.11 ·m ·-rEQiliiYXtT I}_ &f!{_B_F JYg_/l&Jaay;zal
                                                                                     (~)
-•~---------------------
    r:~ wtu:r {)r J}_~(16-1w, /)kllj_~ Fz~j--­
_ _ __.A_~elJdpZC/J/6 Rc3cz-a:n{p_7J:t6_tJfiE-YPDci u.)UrG\-\
----..F ff4!!J_:tiiKR-~-<)/1:5 m!lfJe_7.[)_:r.)le~~-tiE._~---
---~& .d_.j'_~                      ll~!.:~_l_l_,_ctj_,:fe,~cm:;DJ~"--------,---
                                                                   :J:AJ
                                 l-3- ~)           e~ 71-fe- ·7&4:5 ~                        D~ ~£1_( PI!£1Cillli.le
                                                                                                          --
                                 AIJ!J         f1.j           Re [;;<·u~ w              p_s!A~ /}fJ_f)b:ar?:C2JAJ~

                                                                                 /!&5..ee;;zFu./k-~~llE:)
             ,
                                                                                  ~-~
                                                                                .::5tl:IZ2 (;;JJ ~-~ m'f::j)_(f!U:l ~c:r)
                                                                               TlJ C[_;.Jt) ¥ 03&J4 {) t ~~~~725Lk ~

-·                           -
                                                                               c),/d}_ F.fYI...:34- ?~
                                                                                 lduAkt::sv.r: ~ TEX/kf q_~~o

                                 ·-·
                                                       -          -   .b~ c.

                                                          ~

     .   .       .   -   .       .:Lj~..5B:m ~~ Chm~"TjjQ""-.rl)::f:E-5.3D4Dtr~_

                                                                                      (7J
                                                                                                                                \
                     :
 .

 •                        ~tr.{[c£Dl;. ~      ~LtfCfE.
                                                               . .
                                                                     -,

        ·~:L-J JMJJJJIJJA~_c_I.J._ m_eElj5iJ cs-.r:tr~~_04,to\)               r   .

      f}d i.A10.e .:LJJ '7116 H~7e:TD /i__?fllc/J!:t)_lt ct:Ii0,_eGl!!llR_1_
     -J1-ff2·r_l1_. JR.tt£ ~,J!) ~7 {!J)Pf!_BE_ ·7214;f_/JM~                          _
      ~ ~~ e_;: ~,.t/l]ll/JJUSr_~-~ f/l;;.r~ 7D
     P.a:oi!_e;)J~_C 'ld ~:.J bA-l-lr6 (, ·~&z cT t!.&-"R-{~ D~
     -~-~,:_/GXIIS R' Ro.~4~J_b1~~7l>LI
     ~-Z'ldJD -~.51 1 ~_-el&cnJ_~_..i~/lle_:/21)_ :71£ tl&"-rdJ                           -
          .
      .   ---             1-   -· -- -·--A   --   -;---               -

                r:XQJS.

-·                                      ~-~(l,j;;_--
                                     ~-EO.L!J.flMl_C_u,/n 15)
                                                                                      ·----

                                                   (fe([J~ PiUJJs

                                                  -

                                                                          -r--
                                                                              .
                                                                              -

-·                                                                   -----·

                                      (_~
.   ·'~·   ilffl
·-:v{~~            ..
   ·· ..
                                                                   CHRIS DANIEL
                                                                                                                       I
                                                           HARRIS COUNTY DISTRICT CLERK

                        January 16, 2015

                        SAM EDWARD CUMBO
                        #530401 ESTELLE UNIT
                        264 FM 3478
                        HUNTSVILLE, TEXAS 77320

                        To Whom It May Concern:

                        Pursuant to Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, please find enclosed
                        copies of the documents indicated below concerning the Post Conviction Writ filed in
                        cause number 540240-A in the 177th District Court.

                        [gl State's Original Answer Filed January 15,2015

                        D     Affidavit

                        D     Court Order Dated

                        D     Respondent's Proposed Order Designating Issues and Order For Filing Affidavit.

                        D     Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact and Order

                        D     Other

                                ernandez, Deput
                        Criminal Post Trial

                        lah

                        Enclosure(s)- STATE'S ORIGINAL ANSWER

                                           ...                                                                   ...
                                      1201 FRANKLIN   •   P.O. Box 4651   •   HOUSTON, TEXAS   77210-4651   • (888) 545-5577

                        PAGE I OF I                                                                                        REV: 01-02-04
·-~·
.    '
    .. l .

     -~·
             ',
                   "                                                                                 JiN
                                                                                                       ':'i ].;j- T! TI:;v n_·
                                                                                                              )·. lU ~ iLJ;-1
      '; ' ·: ~·                                                                                           C;hris Daniel · '
                                                                                                           District Clerk

                                                                                                        JAN 15 2015
                                                           CAUSE NO. 0540240-A               lflme: . .. .          U{ ,_,   '"'O
                                                                                                                             &

                             EX PARTE                               §

                                                                    §              OF

                             SAM EDWARD CUMBO,                      §              HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
                              Applicant

                                                         STATE'S ORIGINAL ANSWER

                                   The State of Texas, through its Assistant District Attorney for Harris County,

                             files this, its original answer in the above-captioned cause, having been served with

                             an application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to TEX. CRIM. PRoc. CODE art. 11.07

                             § 3 (West 2013), and would show the following:

                                                                        I.

                                   The applicant is confined pursuant to the judgment and sentence of the

                             177th District Court of Harris County, Texas, in cause number 0540240 (the

                             primary case).   In the applicant's first trial, a jury found the applicant guilty of

                             capital murder, and the trial court imposed the death penalty.          The Court of

                             Criminal Appeals reversed the judgment and remanded the case for a new trial.

                             In the applicant's second trial, the jury found the applicant guilty of capital

                             murder, but answered the first and second special punishment issues in the

                       ...                                                   ...                                                    ...
"~c

      I.

                       I

                           negative. The applicant's punishment in the primary case.was... then.ass.essed at

                           life imprisonment.

                                   The First Court of Appeals issued an opinion on January 31, 1991, affirming

                           the conviction. Cumbo v. State, No. 01-89-1176-CR (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.]

                           January 31, 1991} (not designated for publication).

                                                                        \

                                   The State denies the factual allegations made· in the instant application,
               ,i'
                                                    ... ~-.·   ···-·- ··-·   ~   ·- ...

           (
           \
                      (:~~~~:~~o~~.s~~p~ott~JLll.ygff)£i~l.~~_rt.~:~~~ and offers the follo~i ng additiona I
                     '-·-reply; _____ .

                                   While the Court of Criminal Appeals has never imposed any requirement

                           that claims for habeas relief be asserted within a specified period of time, Ex

                           parte Carrio, 992 S.W.2d 486, 487 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999}, the Court has also

                           recognized that the doctrine of laches can bar habeas relief in the circumstance

                           that the State is harmed as a result of an unreasonable delay in pursuing a habeas

                           claim. /d. at 488; see also Ex Parte Perez, 398 S.W.3d 206, 215 (Tex. Crim. App.

                           2013} (reaffirming Carrio's holding that Texas courts may apply the common-law·

                           doctrine of laches in determining whether to grant habeas relief).

                                   The State and the society have a legitimate interest in the finality of a long-

                           standing conviction. Ex parte Perez, 398 S.W.3d at 218. The equitable doctrine of
                                                                                      '·
                laches is app,lied as a bar to habeas corpus relief when an applica11t's u_nreasonable

                delay has prejudiced the State. /d. at 219. For a laches argument to prevail, the

                State must show by a preponderance of the evidence that there has been an

                unreasonable delay by the applicant and prejudice resulted from the deJay. /d. at

                210 n. 3.

        r----~ determine                          if the delay is unreasonable, reviewing courts may consider,
    I
    l among other things, the length of the delay in filing the application, the reasons for

                the delay, and the degree and type of prejudice resulting from the delay. See Ex
    I

I               parte Perez, 398 S.W.3d at 217 (holding that similar to speedy-trial claims, no single
I
i

                factor is necessary or sufficient). In considering whether prejudice has been shown,

                the reviewing court is permitted to consider anything that places the State in a less
                                                                                                                                                           .;

                                                                                                                                                        it'/
                 favorable position, including prejudice to the State's ability to@the applicant.

                 /d. at 215. Therefore, the reviewing court may draw reasonable· inferences from the

                 circumstantial          evidence         to .determine                          whether                           excessive            delay   has   likely
                                                                    .I
                 compromised the reliability of a~ /d. at 217 (reasoning that, similar to speedy-

                 trial claims, "excessive delay presumptively compromises the reliabilj_tv. pf a trial in
                                                                            '. -·· .............. ~ --~-- ____,.._ .......   .. .-... --~- ....                       ---~~-   . . .:____ =--

                 United            State, 505
                 ..-----------------------·-
                                                ·u.s.   647,
                                                         ----
                                                              655
                                                               -- ....
                                                             ~·-·
                                                                       (1992)).
                                                                           .
                                                                                Thus, the State's "pleadings invoking
                                                                    ~~----j-~-·--

                 laches in the habeas context need only give notice to the opposing side and need
        ir~-- - - - - - -

                                   ...                                                                                                            ...
       not [raise] a prima facie showing of particularized prejudice[.]" Ex parte Perez, 398
S.W.3d at 217 n. 3.

                The extent of the prejudice that the State must prove bears an inverse

       relationship to the length of the applicant's delay. Ex parte Perez, 398 S.W.3d at

       217. The longer an applicant delays filing an applicatipn, the less evidence the State

       must show to demonstrate prejudice. /d.· at 217-18 (!easo~_jha:Ltb.e_JQog.e.r-a--..____,
                                                       .                              '                                                    )              /'

       ~_ha~...?..~=-~--9·~-~-~.x_~~-~--!~-~- Jl1Qie... IJke ly.. it-is-that--the ··reI iab ility..oLC!.~b.9_~~e n ___ _
       compromised). Although the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals declined to adopt a
       '-------·e-•~f'

       rebuttable presumption of prejudice to the State after a specified period of time, it

       "recognize[d] that delays of more than five years may generally be considered

       unreasonable in the absence of any justification for the delay." /d. at 216 n. 12. If

       prejudice to the State is shown, the reviewing court must then weigh that prejudice

       against any equitable consideration that[Qiilitat:l in favor of granting habeas relief.

       Allowing the reviewing court to reject. the State's reliance on laches when the

       record shows that (1) an applicant's delay was not unreasonable because it was due
                                                               ~.--*'~-   --    h   --    •   ~-·   '   _.   "                •

       ----
       to a justifiable excuse or excusable neglect; (2) the State would not be materially
                              _
               ..................._.. ... ~-........ --."··-··-·· ·-· -~--------·-,.---:. ____·...... -------··----·--·-·---------             ---------~--~--------~----·-

       prejudiced as a result of the delay; or (3) the applicant is entitl~g__g>__~guitable relief
-'"'        ----~--·--·---·-------·,..·····-~·~""·___..-------------:.. (-·------------"--- ------------------~-                                          .

       .   ,
                                                                                                                             4       ...

                                                                                                                        S-1/
f,.~           •.
1.'~-·    •   • ·I
~-    '   .
:;;

                       innocent of the offense, or in some case, that he is rt:asqldflJ~l~){_tO gr:evail Q_IJ_~____.:;

                       the merits. /d.
                      ~    ---                     <--·--

                                           Here, the applicant was found guilty, for the second time, to the offense in

                       the primary case on November 13, 1989. See State's Writ Exhibit A, Judgment On

                       Jury Verdict of Guilty, No.540240.                                                                                                       The trial court entered its judgment on the

                       same date. See /d. The trial received the mandate on October 15, 1991. The

                       applicant's instant habeas application, filed December 10, 2014, seeks_re.lLethased_

                       on a__ f2~~~~=~hi_s_h
                       -~~         .
                                             tC?o ~-PJSJ_c_e...o.eady__t bJr:.t_y_,~(3.Q)_ye a r~----
                                                                                                  ago,.... and
                                                                                                            ...__ _...
                                                                                                                       ~~~.r:.J..\\'_e.o.ty_:tb.r:ge                                                      _
                      ,.t?.~l_y_e,~E_?_ .9f!~~"!-~~~.f.~.~ ~J- ~~~~.~:~ion                                                                    ...   ~--~·,..-~.,,
                                                                                                                                                                     in the                        prim~~~ (~~·:·~~·i·~~~-~-~h;tth;--J
                                                                                                                                                                    .. ,._ ~ ....... __ ~..... ___ 4_,.,.._.,.--·--                                       ' 4 - -...... - .......~~ ....--~ .............,._.-.......... ,......,.-.... ,,_.-

                               -·----                        -<~!""-""""'"~''"';,-;>-o"... ~   ....   ~,-- -·-•·--~-~'""'"~'"~'-"~-··~'--=--- ...-.._,~_,                                ..,

                     ,sfate would be able to locat.e_aJLoJ_ii~ateJ:i.a.Lw.itr.~esss.&,-i·A-the-e-v.e-n.LoL _r:.e.tdiif;} · ~:
                      ~-------------~-~~·--·--·-~·-r;;:..···. . ·----~,.. . . ~.-- . . . ~~---_,....,. . .~---b:.:::;:::;::.:.:::::.::-.:~:=::::::.::::;~~=:~-.--:·:::~:.::~"'r~"-·-------,.,,_~,""·'·~..,..,_.,...,,,.""'". . .,. . . . . "' . =-·~·.... --·"'· -.:.................."""~·,...

                        and thus its ability to@the primary case is greatly diminished. Moreover, it

                        would not be reasonable to assume   that the
                                                    --------·-----       same -------~..::..::..:.:::_=~-=.:...:..::..::..::.=_
                                                                   ""·----·--·--·---·-- evidence would be available

                        after twenty-three (23) years.                                                                                       T~~.E.ellSEDLba.s_o.o.La.cco..unted any reasons fo~

                        S.W.3d at 216 n.12. The applicant does not show thCJt the State is not materially

                        prejudiced due to his delay, nor show that he is entitled to equitable relief for other

                        compelling reasons. /d.

                                           Due to the applicant's unreasonable delay of over twenty-three (23) years

                         in pursuing his instant habeas claims, the State has been
                                                                               _
                                                                                   prejudiced
                                                                                       . . -
                                                                                              in o4its""'"· ability to                                                                                                                                                                                 ~~.,...__,.,..,..,..n•~~~,..               .

                                                                                                                   .      ...                                                     5                                                                                                                       ...

                                                                                                                                                                      &;-A
,   ·~··-:._n
                ::;:
                ···'J
                ~-7.

                ~:·
                 '

                        respond to the applicant's habeas claims, and therefore the applicant's instant
                        .,,.._. __,.._,...,.....,....... ~~~?-·-...,~.J0"•-"'1""--·:-.,..,..-:"'">-..''..,_•o-o"'"··•':'!!t:l'<>i!'•~""-"-h':"""'~.of','-'<'t•!!.~:'lo':<'•t:l.'"f'~• ...,~:::;~~~"<"..-";W::;:•·:

                        habeas claims should be denied
                                                ,..... ..,_..,.,..,......
                                                                          based on....,.......the doctrine of laches.                           ~_                 ~~,.,..,.~..,·"~1.-:,.~,t.-~"""'··~·-~            .;:~1->!.,.~.' ~~- . .;c;.w, ••·,;-:-:~·-·~\''\'· ~:0::!- "'";'!·~':;"~-!': t··t.'••:.:;;..~_,..t;:o~Jr~O:'!tr
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Carrio, 992
S.W.2d at 487.

                                                 In the alternative,

                                                                            · REPLY TO THE APPLICANT'S FIRST ANDTHIRD GROUNDS FOR RELIEF

                                                The applicant appears to allege trial court error and insufficient evidence.

                        See Writ Application at 6, 8.

                        959 S.W.2d 189, 198-200 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Ex parte Goodman, 816 S.W.2d
383, 385 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Ex parte Groves, 571 S.W.2d 888, 890 (Tex. Crim.
                                                  .                                                                                                                                                                                  .                                                                                      t::.·
                        App. 1978); Ex parte Acosta, 672 S.W.2d 470 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984).l The purpose of
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            ~-........e-.-...~~·'"'~·~~~

                        the substitute f9Lc:JD ...~PP.e~i_ffi' Ex parte Clore, 690 S.W.2d 899, 900 (Tex. Crim. App.
                          ,,,,_. .•... -.~ '··";.',l~:<,,;,.·l.•~•l•·.;,,   ,,;-,·:·_,. ,t' :t,   . '                I   ·W    ~'""o.~;-.;.1.                                                                                                                                                                                                     •

                        1985); Ex parte McGowan, 645 S.W.2d 286, 288 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983).

                                                 Generally, factual and evidentiary challenges are "record claims" and should

                        be litigated on direct appeal. Gardner, 959 S.W.2d at 198-200. The applicant's
                                                                                                                                         ~---==------:;
                        allegations are considere~ "record clai~.-~~~~~-h~uld~-!?..~~._prought u~
                                                  ...... --- -

                        appeal. See !d.                                                              A claim that could have been asserted on direct appeal is not
                        ~·-v

                                                                                        ...                                                                                                              6                                                                                              ...
      cognizable in habeas corpus. Ex parte Cruzata,220 S.W.3d 518, 520 (Tex. Crim. App.

      2007). When an applicant fails to raise an issue on direct appeal where there was

      an adequate remedy at law, he forfeits his' right to have the merits of the claim

      reviewed on an application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte Townsend, 137
S.W.3d 79, 81 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). Thus, this ground should be denied.

            Therefore, the applicant's ·instant ground for relief is without merit and

      should be denied.

                                                      REPLY TO THE APPLICANT'S SECOND GROUND FOR RELIEF

            The applicant claims that the indictment is invalid. See Writ Application at 7.

      of "8/23/89" is an "imP-ossible date" as the "89" could mean 1989 or 2089. See /d.
       ~W    {'\"   ....:± !r.o~;...W,.J:'I"'   .-   ...    b t . W . - •.... -~~~.~~i969 S.W.2d 16, 19 (Tex. Crim. App.

       1998); Studer v. State, 799 S.W.2d 263, 273 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). The applicant

                                                           '·                                7                                 '·
          fails to show that he objected to the. indictment pretrial. . Therefore,.· he i~

     · procedurally defaulted from litigating that issue in the instant writ proceeding.

                  This instant ground has no merit and must be denied.

                                    --~---- ----··· ~--~------~-~ :· -----   . .-···::. ,:.:::..;=-1 ~-~-~~~-=-~~·~-::---·~-----~·~. ----··· ·-- '>'···~---   ....... - .... ~ -- - .... , .•. ------
                        __..... -
                    ~                                                                                                                                                                                   ~
                .  ~
              /---The applicant raises questions of law and fact, which can be resolved by the                                                                                                              '
                                                                                                                                                                                                            /
          /                                                                                                                                                                                             J
         /r
     /

    / Court of Criminal Appeals upon review of official court records and without need··.·
(
\
\
\         for an evidentiary hearing.

     '·                                                                                             8          '·                                                                                               '·
EX PARTE

SAM EDWARD CUMBO,                       §          HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
 Applicant

           CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE UNDER TEX. R. APP. 73.1(f)

     The State of Texas, through its Assistant D.istrict Attorney for Harris County,

files this, its Certificate of Compliance in the above-captioned cause, haVing been
                   \..
served with an application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Tex. Crim. Proc. ·

Code art. 11.07 § 3. The State certifies that the number of words in the State's

Original Answer is 1671.

                 clc;,              )
      Signed this 15th day of January, 2015 .
                 ...____
                  I t

                                                   Respectfully Submitted,

                                                   Sharon Y. Chu
                                                   Assistant District Attorney
                                                   Harris County, Texas
                                                   1201 Franklin, Suite 600
                                                   Houston, Texas 77002
                                                   (713} 755-6657
                                                   Texas Bar# 24051950

                            ...                                              ...
\.   ~~~~~~~-.-~~~--?L__.Depu~
      ..         r' ..~:.:.\.:.~ ~>_./

                              ........~:.:.-{; •..'·;
           .,.,,,.,., -.......,
                                            IV.

          Service has been accomplished by sending a copy of this instrument to the

. . _following address:

                 Mr. Sam Edward Cumbo
                 TDCJ # 530401
                 Estelle Unit
                 264 FM 3478
                 Huntsville, Texas 77320

          SIGNED this 15th day of January, 2015.

                                            Respectfully submitted,

                                             s~~-. ~p~I?''\ Y'
                                             \'.,} f!''i.l;.l'i.V 11
                                                             \i, ..,
                                                                       d>   If'   ll..
                                                                            ~"'W"'-'"

                                            Sharon Y. Chu
                                            Assistant District Attorney
                                            Harris County District Attorney's Office
                                            1201 Franklin Street .
                                            Houston, Texas 77002
                                            (713) 755-6657
                                            Texas Bar I.D. #24051950

                                     ...    9                                            ...
...
                                                                                                                                                        -·   -·-1

                                                                ~k.{i
                                                                                                                                                               {

                                            of Not Guilty Before •Jurv 'i'" Co•.rt AsSessing Punishment                                            ~~);;

                     THE    STATE      Cf.                                                                                                               DrsTRrcr
                     vs.   -..,/{:z. ·/77                                                                            COURT Of HARRIS COUNTY,. TEXAS

                                                                .:wci£NT ~ juRY vE~ncr or       curL
                                                                                                TY
                                                     PUNISHMENT fiXED BY COURT OR JURY - NO PROBATION GRANTED

                                                                                            Date Offense     0,    •      / 4 • i    //            jc?             C'
                                                 De ree :   ;t/;1;4-,                       Committed:   ,,.)'(. JZ:Z:I-JLV-V:J     ;"'2   1   •    ;        ·:__ )

                      harging
                     Instrument:· · Indictment /lrtfel'm&M<>n.
                     Plea
                     Jury Verdict

                          On this day, set forth above, this cause was called far trial, and the State appeared by the above
                     named attorney, and the Defendant appeared in person in open court, the above named counsel for Defendant
                     also being present, or, where a defendant is not represented by counsel, that the Defendant knowingly,
                     intelligently, and v.alun.tarll~v.ed_t.he __ r,i.gh_Uo~.representation by counsel; and the said· Defendant having
                     been duly arraigned and it appearing to the Court that Defendant was mentally conpetent, and having pleaded
                     as shown above to the indictment herein, both parties announced ready for trial and thereupon .a jury,
                     to-wit, the above named foreman and eleven others was duly selected, impaneled and sworn, who having heard
                     the 'indictment read and the Defendant's plea thereto, and having heard the evidence submitted, and having
                     been duly charged by the Court, retired in charge of the proper office to consider the verdict, and
                     afterward were brough into Court by the proper officer, the Defendant and .defendant's counsel being
                     present, and returned into open court the verdict set forth above, which was received by the Court and is
                     here now entered upon the minutes of the Court as shown above.                 ·

                           The Defendant, in person, in writing, and in open -court, with the written agreement of the court,
                           waived his right to the preparation of a pre-sentence report by the Probation Office, such waiver
                           having been filed in the papers _of the cause.                                    ·
                     [ ] The Defendant not having waived the preparation 'or a pre-sentence report by the Probation
                         Officer, the Court directed the Probation Officer to prepare such a report.

                         Thereupon, the Defendant elected to have punishment assessed by the above shown assessor of punishment,
                     -'d when shown above that the inclict~~~t~nt contxhance111ent paragraph( a), which were not waived, and
                     alleges Defendant to have been convicted              previously of any felony or offenses .for the purpose of
                     enhancement of punishment, then the Court ask eo e fend ant if such allegations were true or ~alae and
                     Defendant answered as shown above. , And when Defendant is shown above to have elected to have the jury
                     aaaesa punishment, such jury was called. back into the box and heard evidence relative to the question of
                     puniah•ent and having been duly charged by the Court1 they retired to consider such question, ll"ld after
                     having dellberated, they returned into Court the verdict shown under punillhllent above; and when De fend ant
                     is ahown above to have elected to have puniah~~~ent rtxed by the Court, in -due form of law further evidence
                     was heard by the Court relative to the question of punishment and the Court fixed punishment of the
                     Defendant as ahown above.                                                                ·                                                         c..:.
                         IT IS, THEREfORE, CONSIDERED AND ORDERED by the Court, in the presence of the Defendant, that the said
                     judgment be, and the same is hereby in ·all things approved and confirmed, and that the Defendant is
                     adjudged guilty of the offense set forth above as found by the verdict of the jury, as set forth above, and
                     said Defendant be punished in accordance with the Jury Verdict or the Court's Finding, as shown above ano
                     that the Defendant is sentenced to a term of imprison!IW!nt or fine or both, as set forth above, and that
                     said De fend ant be delivered by the Sheriff to the Director of the Department of Corrections of the State of
                     rexas, or other person legally authorized to receive such convicts for the punisnment assessed herein, and
                     the aaid Defendant shall be confined for the above named term in accordance with the provisions of law
                     governing such punishments and execution may issue as necessary.
                                                                                                                                                                        r .,
                           And the said Defendant is remanded to jail until said Sherifr can obey the directions of this judgment.

STATE'S WV11   ...   ~------~~---------
EXHIBIT
  A
                                               BILL       or         C: 0 S T S

                      O..ERK 'S f1IS                                               RECAPITULATl~
       C:lerk'a Fee •••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••• -,   Z5    DO        F"ine •••-••••••••••••••••••••••••
                                                                          Misc. Coat •••••••••••••••••••••
                                                                          Trial Fee ..................... .
                       SHERIF"F"'S FEES                                   District Atty's Fees ......... ..
       Serving - - - - C a p i a s b Mileage ••••••                       Clerk's Fees ................. ..
       Sunmoning              Witness and Mileage •••                     Sheriff's F"ees ................ .
       Jury ree ................................. .                       Jury Fee ..................... .
       Taking                Bonds ••••••••••••••••                       Crim. Justice Planning F"und ... .      :zo        00
       Commitment .......................... ; .... .       2   00        L.E.o.s.e:.r .................. ..       l        !90
       Release ............................... ·.. ..       2   DO        c:.v.c.F ....................... .      ZD         DO
       Attachment .............................. .                        Attorney Fees ••••••••••••••••••
                          TOTAL ................... .                     J.C.P.T.r ••••••••••••••••••••••              l    DO
       TEXAS DEPARHENT l;f' CORRECTlONS----                               Witnesses ••••••••••••••••••••••
       TlHE ASSESSED~~/

      ~~;~~~~~~;tf:-b-e-gi-n-·1-/)/ I I J ff:5'
                   Addition~l Credit   AYff     Days                      TOTAL ••••••••••••••• • •• •• ••. • •

      Probation expires        ~JV_j/;~~-~-------                            DATE SIGNED

      Judge4. Z2

           I!      '
      L-/?r-.
             ;~)s./8'9
                                                                                                                                  .-:.n
            To which action of the Court the Defendant then and there, in oper~ C•::>t'rt
            excepted and gave notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals in the ;:k,t<: c.·i
            Texus, Houcton, Te>:ss.
            Fnd inasmuch as r,aid Defendant llc.~ given ncr;ic:959 S.W.2d 189, 198-200 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Ex parte Goodman, 816 S.W.2d

           383, 385 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Ex parte Groves, 571 S.W.2d 888, 890 (Tex. Crim.

           App. 1978); Ex parte Acosta, 672 S.W.2d 470 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984).

                 13.    The purpose of habeas corpus is to determine the lawfulness of

           confinement and not to serve as the substitute for an appeal. Ex parte Clore, 690

           S.W.2d 899, 900 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985); Ex parte McGowan, 645 S.W.2d 286, 288
                            ....                                              ...,

                                                     3
          I
          (,
           l .

    .-.
--.---(-+E*-GF~ffi;-AF' 13-;-1-98-31-.-+A€-a·F>F>I+eank-a-l+ega-He-A-ef-iA-S-H-f-f.iefe.A€y-e-v-i den ce, tFi;-a-a
                                                                                                                 t - 1- - - -

                 court error, and prosecutorial misconduct are considered {/record claims" and

                 should have brought it up on appeal. See id.

                           14.   Challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence are not cognizable on

                 habeas. Ex parte Easter, 615 S.W.2d 719, 721 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981); Ex parte

                 Williams, 703 S.W.2d 674, 677 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986); Ex parte McLain, 869 S.W.2d

                 349, 350 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988); Ex parte Ash, 514 S.W.2d 762, 763 (Tex. Crim. App.

                 1974).

                           15.   If a criminal defendant does not object to a defect, error, or

                 irregularity of form or substance in an indictment before the date on which the trial

                 on the merits commences, he waives and forfeits the right to object to the defect,

                 error, or irregularity and he may not raise the objection on appeal or in any other

                 post-conviction proceeding. See TEX. CRIM. PRoc. CODE ANN. art. 1.14(b) (West 2013);

                 see also Ex parte Patterson, 969 S.W.2d 16, 19 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Studer v.

                 State, 799 S.W.2d 263, 273 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990).

                           16.   In all things, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that his conviction

                 was improperly obtained or that he is being improperly confined.

                           Accordingly, it is recommended to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals that

                 relief be denied .
                     ...                                                     ...

                                                              4
                                              ORDER

         THE CLERK IS ORDERED to prepare a transcript of all papers in cause number

     0540240-A and transmit same to the Court of Criminal Appeals as provided by

     TEX. CODE (RIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 § 3 (West 2013). The transcript shall include

     certified copies of the following documents:

             A.      the application for writ of habeas corpus with all attachments;

             B.     the State's answer;

             C.     the trial court's order, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law;

             D.     the State's and the Applicant's Proposed Findings of Fact and
                    Conclusions of Law (if any); and

             E.     the indictment, docket sheets, and judgment and sentence in cause
                    number 0540240.

             THE CLERK is further ORDERED to send a copy of this order to the applicant,

     Mr. Sam Cumbo, TDCJ # 530401, Estelle Unit, 264 FM 3478, Hunstsville, Texas

     77320; and a copy to the counsel for the State, Sharon Y. Chu, Assistant District

     Attorney, 1201 Franklin, Suite 600, Houston, Texas 77002.

           By the following signature, the Court adopts the State's Proposed
     Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and r er in cause number 0540240-A.
         '
                  Signed on this   Z ~day o                             ,. 20_.zr._.

                                                PRESIDING

'·                                              '·                                         '·

                                                     5
 EX PARTE                              §

                                       §           OF

 SAM EDWARD CUMBO,                     §          . HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
             0

  Applicant

             CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE UNDER TEX. R. APP. 73.1(f)

      The State of Texas, through its Assistant District Attorney for Harris County,

 files this, its Certificate of Compliance in the above-captioned cause, having been

' served with an application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Tex. Crim. Proc.

 Code art. 11.07 § 3. The State certifies that the number of words in the State's

 Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order is 684.

       Signed this 15th day of January, 2015.

                                                   Respectfully Submitted,

                                                   Sharon Y. Chu
                                                   Assistant District Attorney
                                                   Harris County, Texas
                                                   1201 Franklin, Suite 600
                                                   Houston, Texas· 77002
                                                   (713} 755-6657
                                                   Texas Bar# 24051950

                         '·                                              '·