Court Opinion

ID: 9908586
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-11 02:09:44.026704+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:18.353145
License: Public Domain

In the Court of Criminal
              Appeals of Texas
                          ══════════
                         No. WR-94,606-01
                          ══════════

           EX PARTE LAWRENCE ISERAL HUBERT,
                              Applicant

   ═══════════════════════════════════════
         On Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus
                In Cause No. CR34892-A
               In the 253rd District Court
                      Liberty County
   ═══════════════════════════════════════

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

      Once again, the Court is presented with an opportunity to re-
examine our approach to post-conviction collateral attacks based on
double jeopardy claims that were not raised on appeal. Instead of
addressing the appropriate use of writs of habeas corpus in the context
                                                              HUBERT – 2

of double jeopardy claims, the Court summarily grants relief citing Ex
parte Woods, 664 S.W.3d 260 (Tex. Crim. App. 2022). For the reasons I
dissented in that, and previous cases raising the same question, I
dissent again here. Id. at 265–66 (Yeary, J., dissenting); see also Ex parte
Estrada, 487 S.W.3d 210, 214–15 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (Yeary, J.,
dissenting) (arguing that a double jeopardy claim that can be raised for
the first time on appeal should be raised in that proceeding, and that
the failure to do so constitutes a forfeiture for purposes of obtaining
relief in post-conviction habeas corpus proceedings, since habeas is not
a substitute for direct appeal).
      I would file and set this case to consider this issue of cognizability.
Because the Court still does not, I dissent.

FILED:                                                 December 6, 2023
PUBLISH