Court Opinion

ID: 9366912
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-30 02:12:50.357415+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:55.938630
License: Public Domain

In the Court of Criminal
           Appeals of Texas
                           ══════════
                          No. WR-92,046-03
                           ══════════

            EX PARTE DERIC EUGENE MADISON,
                              Applicant
   ═══════════════════════════════════════
         On Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
     Cause No. W14-76000-U(C) in the 291st District Court
                    From Dallas County
   ═══════════════════════════════════════

      YEARY, J., filed a concurring opinion.

      Applicant was convicted in 2015 of murder and sentenced to life
imprisonment. The Fifth Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction in
2016. Madison v. State, No. 05-15-00859-CR, 2016 WL 7163913 (Tex.
App.—Dallas Nov. 8, 2016) (not designated for publication). In July 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
                                                               MADISON – 2

application, he alleges that his trial counsel was ineffective for various
reasons.
       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’s appeal was finalized when the court of appeals issued
its mandate in June of 2017, but this writ application was not filed until
five 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

       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)).
                                                            MADISON – 3

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:                                   January 25, 2023
DO NOT PUBLISH