Court Opinion

ID: 9366909
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-30 02:12:47.754919+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:55.937638
License: Public Domain

In the Court of Criminal
           Appeals of Texas
                           ══════════
                          No. WR-94,427-01
                           ══════════

             EX PARTE RENO PRESTON ROBERTS,
                               Applicant
   ═══════════════════════════════════════
        On Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
      Cause No. CR15-135A in the 235th District Court
                   From Cooke County
   ═══════════════════════════════════════

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

      Applicant pled guilty in 2015 to indecency with a child by contact
and was sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment. Applicant did not
appeal his conviction. In November of 2022, Applicant filed an
application for writ of habeas corpus in the county of conviction. TEX.
CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07. In his application, he alleges that his trial
                                                               ROBERTS – 2

counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate Applicant’s competency
before Applicant pled 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 pled guilty in 2015, but he did not file this writ
application until seven 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

       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)).
                                                           ROBERTS – 3

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:                                  January 25, 2023
DO NOT PUBLISH