Court Opinion

ID: 9370317
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-13 00:12:20.027218+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:21.026089
License: Public Domain

In the Court of Criminal
           Appeals of Texas
                          ══════════
                         No. WR-75,864-05
                          ══════════

      EX PARTE BARTHOLOMEW ANTONIO GUZMAN,
                              Applicant
   ═══════════════════════════════════════
        On Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
      Cause No. 1053411-B in the 262nd District Court
                   From Harris County
   ═══════════════════════════════════════

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

      Applicant was convicted in 2006 of causing serious bodily injury
to a child and sentenced to ninety years’ imprisonment. The First Court
of Appeals affirmed his conviction in 2008. Guzman v. State, No. 01-06-
00946-CR, 2008 WL 340001 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Feb. 7,
2008) (not designated for publication). In October of 2022, Applicant
                                                            GUZMAN – 2

filed a subsequent application for writ of habeas corpus in the county of
conviction. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07. This Court denied
Applicant’s previous application challenging the same conviction in
2017. In his present application, he alleges that the State presented
false testimony at trial in violation of Applicant’s due process rights. He
also alleges that he is entitled to a new trial under Texas Code of
Criminal Procedure 11.073, because there is newly available scientific
evidence that contradicts the scientific evidence relied on by the State
at trial. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.073.
      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. To pass the bar against consideration of the merits of subsequent
writ applications, Applicant argues that the legal bases for his current
claims were unavailable when he filed his previous applications. But
even once the legal bases for his current claims were available,
Applicant delayed presenting his current claims. Regarding his false
testimony claim, the legal basis for such a claim arose in Ex parte
Chabot, a case handed down by this Court in 2009. Ex parte Chabot, 300
S.W.3d 768 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). Applicant did not file this
                                                                GUZMAN – 3

subsequent writ application until almost thirteen 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
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:                                     February 8, 2023
DO NOT PUBLISH

       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)).