X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Applicant, pro se, filed an application for writ of habeas corpus with the Harris County District Clerk, but within that pre-printed writ-application form, applicant failed to satisfy the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 73.1 that he specify any grounds for relief and factual allegations. Also included within the writ application is a two-page handwritten letter “To The Honorable Judge,” in which applicant complains that the Harris County trial judge was biased against him in revoking his probation, in ordering him transferred to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for 10 years, and for requesting and recommending to the Denton County District Attorney that his Denton County probation be revoked based upon “Harris County’s attempt to revok[e] [his] other probation on a case that was actually dismissed in Harris County.” HOLDING:Dismissed. Reading Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 73.1(a) and (c) together, those sections require a habeas corpus applicant to state the grounds for relief and the supporting facts on the prescribed form. Applicant did not complete the portions of the application form that require a list of the grounds for relief and the supporting facts. Rule 73.2 provides procedures for the handling of writ applications that are not in compliance with Rule 73.1. The rule authorizes the clerk of the convicting court and the clerk of this court to return such a noncompliant writ application to the applicant without filing it. Under rule 73.4, the court may deny relief or “may issue such other instructions or orders as may be appropriate.” Here, the court finds that dismissal of applicant’s writ application is appropriate. Although applicant submitted his writ application on the required form, the sections of the form that require a list of the grounds for relief and the supporting facts were not completed. “We are mindful of the provisions in Rule 73.1(c) that permit an applicant to include legal citations and arguments in a separate memorandum, and applicant’s handwritten letter may indeed qualify as such a separate memorandum. However the rules do not permit such a memorandum to substitute for the required specification of grounds for relief and facts supporting those grounds. Because applicant did not complete the portions of the application form which require a list of the claimed grounds for relief and the supporting facts, we dismiss applicant’s application for writ of habeas corpus as non-compliant.” OPINION:Johnson, J., delivered the court’s opinion.

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?

 
 

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.