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 defendant was convicted of aggravated robbery in Stephens County, where his deferred-adjudication community supervision for that offense had been transferred from Dallas County. The defendant filed a habeas corpus application under C.C.P. Art. 11.07 in Dallas County. That court recommended denying the application. The Dallas County clerk forwarded the habeas record to this court. This court says it will consider what procedure applies when a defendant filed an Art. 11.07 application in a county other than the county of conviction. HOLDING:Writ dismissed. In Ex Parte Alexander, 861 S.W.2d 921 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993), under an earlier version of Art. 11.07, the court held that whenever a writ of habeas corpus is filed after final conviction in a felony case, “the clerk shall transfer or assign it to the court in which the conviction being challenged was obtained.” The legislature then amended Art. 11.07 to say, “An application for writ of habeas corpus filed after final conviction in a felony case . . . must be filed with the clerk of the court in which the conviction being challenged was obtained, and the clerk shall assign the application to that court.” The court concludes that a plain reading of the alteration signals a legislative intent not to further require a district clerk to transfer an Art. 11.07 application “to the court in which the challenged conviction was obtained” when the application “is presented to a district clerk in a county in which the challenged conviction was not entered.” The amendment left intact the other holding in Alexander that “when an application is presented to the district clerk of the county in which the challenged conviction was entered, the clerk shall assign the application to the appropriate court.” As proof of that, the court notes that the word “transfer” was deleted from the amendment, and the word “assign” was left alone. “Any other interpretation . . . would render the 1999 legislative amendment to Article 11.07 meaningless.” OPINION:Hervey, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which Keller, PJ., Meyers, Price, Womack, Keasler, Holcomb and Cochran, JJ., joined. Johnson, J., concurred.

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

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* 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?


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 © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.