Court Opinion

ID: 9363551
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-16 07:07:12.150582+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:32.562848
License: Public Domain

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
                           FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

                                    ORDER OF ABATEMENT

Appellate case name:         Ex parte Shawn Paul Robinson
Appellate case number:       01-22-00583-CR
Trial court case number:     1751891
Trial court:                 351st District Court of Harris County

        Appellant, through counsel, filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s order
denying his application for writ of habeas corpus. On November 15, 2022, the State filed
a “Motion to Dismiss for Want of Jurisdiction.” In its motion, the State argued that this
Court lacks jurisdiction to review the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s application for writ
of habeas corpus, because (1) the trial court “did not rule on the merits of the writ
application[,]” and (2) “[e]ven if the trial court’s December 22, 2021 order denying relief
is sufficient . . . this Court lacks jurisdiction because the appellant’s notice of appeal is
untimely.”
       Generally, an appeal of a trial court’s refusal to issue a writ of habeas corpus is only
permitted where the trial court considered, and resolved, the merits of the application. See
Ex parte Hargett, 819 S.W.2d 866, 868 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Ex parte Campos, No. 14-
17-00492-CR, 2017 WL 4797839, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 24, 2017,
no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (“There is no right of appeal from a
refusal to issue a writ of habeas corpus, even after a hearing, when the trial court did not
consider and resolve the merits of the application.”). According to the State, the trial court
“did not hear evidence or arguments” on Appellant’s habeas application, and instead, only
“entered an order summarily denying relief.”
       On August 12, 2022, the official court reporter for 351st District Court of Harris
County filed in this Court an “Information Sheet by Court Reporters,” indicating that there
is no reporter’s record. The clerk’s record was initially filed on August 11, 2022, with
supplemental clerk’s records being filed on August 16, 2022 and October 7, 2022. A
review of the record on appeal reflects that the trial court did not hold a hearing on the
merits of Appellant’s habeas application. The appellate record further reflects that, on
January 26, 2022, the trial court signed “a preprinted judgment form with a checked box”
noting that the trial court “order[ed] relief denied” on Appellant’s habeas application.
        However, in response to the State’s motion to dismiss, Appellant, through counsel,
filed a “Motion to Abate” the appeal. In his motion, Appellant states that “[i]t is not clear
that the trial court did not” rule on the merits of his habeas application. According to
Appellant, the trial court “considered the merits of the habeas application on the pleadings,”
arguing that “no hearing was necessary,” as the issues presented by Appellant’s habeas
application were “a purely legal question.”
        Appellant’s motion states that he has “asked the trial court for clarification” of its
order on Appellant’s habeas application. However, to the extent the trial court determines
clarification is necessary, it is not clear that the trial court “currently [has] jurisdiction to
enter an order nunc pro tunc.” Given these circumstances, Appellant has requested that the
Court “abate this appeal” and remand to the “trial court to clarify its orders.”1
        Appellant’s motion states that the State “is unopposed to abatement for this
clarification.”
       Accordingly, we grant Appellant’s motion, abate the appeal and remand to the trial
court to “clarify its orders” on Appellant’s habeas application within fifteen days of the
date of this order. A supplemental clerk’s record with any trial court orders resulting from
appellant’s request for clarification shall be filed with the Clerk of this Court within thirty
days of the date of this order. Further, a reporter’s record of any hearing held in connection
with appellant’s request for clarification shall also be filed with the Clerk of this Court
within thirty days of the date of this order.
        The appeal is abated and the Clerk of this Court is direct to remove this appeal from
the Court’s active docket. The appeal will be reinstated after the supplemental clerk’s
record and reporter’s record described above are filed, or after a party successfully moves
for reinstatement.
        Separately, on December 1, 2022, the State filed a motion to extend the deadline for
filing its brief. The State requested the extension pending this Court’s consideration of its
motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Because the Court has abated the
appeal, all briefing deadlines are suspended during the period of the abatement.
Accordingly, the State’s motion has been rendered moot, and is denied. When the appeal
is reinstated, the Court will set a deadline for the filing of the State’s brief.

1
       Appellant also asserts that “[t]here are two putative denials of relief in this case . . . [and]
       [t]he second was entered on January 26, 2022.” While Appellant does not argue that the
       January 26, 2022 order denying his habeas application makes his February 18, 2022 notice
       of appeal timely, a clarification from the trial court should further aid this Court in
       analyzing the timeliness of Appellant’s notice of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1).

                                                  2
      It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ___/s/ Amparo Guerra_______
                    Acting individually    Acting for the Court

Date: ___January 12, 2023_____

                                         3