Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:The applicant pled guilty to the felony offense of robbery and was sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment and fined $5,000. The applicant did not perfect an appeal. The applicant now challenges his conviction in an application for a writ of habeas corpus transferred to this court pursuant to Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 11.07 �3. HOLDING:Denied. It is well-established that a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence used to sustain a felony conviction is not cognizable on an application for a post-conviction writ of habeas. As such, the applicant’s first ground for relief is denied. The court clarifies the disposition of habeas corpus applications where an applicant advances a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence and we deny the application without written order. In Ex parte Torres, 943 S.W.2d 469 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997), addressing whether the applicant’s subsequent petitions were barred under Article 11.07, �4, of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, this court determined that “a”denial’ signifies that we addressed and rejected the merits of a particular claim while a”dismissal’ means that we declined to consider the claim for reasons unrelated to the claim’s merits.” However, the court also held that “[a] disposition is related to the merits if it decides the merits or makes a determination that the merits of the applicant’s claims can never be decided.” A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence presents one of those instances where the court can never consider the merits of the applicant’s claim. Therefore, the court reaffirms its holding that where an applicant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence on an application for a writ of habeas corpus, and the court disposes of the application by entering a denial without written order, the applicant’s sufficiency claim was denied because the claim is not cognizable. OPINION:Keller, P.J., delivered the opinion of the court. Meyers, J., did not participate.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.