Court Opinion

ID: 9895178
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-06 00:29:56.378994+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:35.648794
License: Public Domain

In the Court of Criminal
           Appeals of Texas
                            ══════════
                           No. WR-95,035-01
                            ══════════

                    EX PARTE JAMES RENFRO,
                               Applicant

   ═══════════════════════════════════════
         On Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
     Cause No. 2013-437,890-A in the 140th District Court
                   From Lubbock County
   ═══════════════════════════════════════

      YEARY, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

      On June 18, 2014, Applicant pled guilty to continuous sexual
abuse of a child, a first-degree felony, and was sentenced to thirty years’
imprisonment. See TEX. PENAL CODE § 21.02. He did not appeal.
Unfortunately, at the time of his plea, the convicting court admonished
Applicant that the minimum prison sentence for his offense was five
years and that he would be eligible for parole after serving at least fifty
                                                               RENFRO – 2

percent of his sentence. In fact, the minimum term of imprisonment for
continuous sexual abuse of a child is twenty-five years. TEX. PENAL CODE
§ 21.02(h). Moreover, conviction under Section 21.02 of the Penal Code
renders an inmate ineligible for parole. See TEX. GOV’T CODE §
508.145(a)(2) (“(a) An inmate is not eligible for release on parole if the
inmate is . . . serving a sentence for any of the following offenses under
the Penal Code: . . . (2) Section 21.02.”).
       Now, nearly nine years later, Applicant has filed an application
seeking postconviction habeas corpus relief on the grounds of
involuntary plea and ineffective assistance of counsel related to his
improper judicial admonishment. The Court grants relief, specifically
noting that the doctrine of laches should not bar it in this case. Majority
Opinion at 1–2. I disagree.
       As I recently explained in Ex parte Ross, No. WR-94,371-02, 2023
WL 6133230 (Tex. Crim. App. Sept. 20, 2023) (Yeary, J., dissenting), this
Court’s laches analysis under Ex parte Perez, does not properly begin
and end with an assessment of the prejudice caused to an adverse party
by “neglect to assert [a] right or claim . . . taken together with [the] lapse
of time. . . .” Perez, 398 S.W.3d 206, 210 (quoting Ex parte Carrio, 992
S.W.2d 486, 487 n.2 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999)). Rather, “neglect for an
unreasonable and unexplained length of time under circumstances
permitting diligence, to do what in law, should have been done” likewise
bars equitable relief. Id.
       Applicant waited nearly nine years after he was convicted to bring
this application. His explanation for this delay is that he was too poor to
afford a copy of the transcript which shows the trial court improperly
                                                            RENFRO – 3

stated the terms of his sentence and parole eligibility and that his trial
counsel failed to object—evidence necessary to support his claims. This
transcript, however, is only thirteen pages long. Given the likely
minimal cost of obtaining such a brief transcript, a bare claim of poverty
does not strike me as a sufficient explanation for Applicant’s otherwise
unreasonably long delay.
      I would deny relief. Because the Court does not, I respectfully
dissent.

FILED:                                         November 1, 2023
DO NOT PUBLISH