Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Jimmie Earl Parr is in prison serving a 17-year sentence for robbery. In 1995, the 10th Court of Appeals dismissed his direct appeal for want of jurisdiction, because the notice of appeal was late and a motion for extension of time to file a late notice of appeal was not timely filed. After the 10th Court dismissed Parr’s direct appeal, Parr filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus under Article 11.05 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure and Article V �8 of the Texas Constitution. By the writ, Parr sought an out-of-time appeal. The trial court issued the writ and held an evidentiary hearing on the merits of granting an out-of-time appeal. The trial court granted Parr’s request to file an out-of-time appeal. Parr filed a notice of appeal seeking to invoke our jurisdiction to consider the merits of an appeal from his conviction for robbery. HOLDING:Dismissed. The court dismissed the appeal, stating it did not have jurisdiction to consider it, because the trial court did not have the authority under an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to Article 11.05 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or Article V � 8 of the Texas Constitution to grant Parr an out-of-time appeal. Parr argued that the Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) has held that a trial court can grant an out-of-time appeal under Article 11.05 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or Article V �8 of the Texas Constitution, relying on the CCA’s holding in Rodriguez v. Court of Appeals, Eighth Supreme Judicial District, 769 S.W.2d 554 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989). Although the court stated that Rodriguez vests a district court, in some circumstances, with the authority to grant an out-of-time appeal, the court stated that Parr’s reliance on Rodriguez was misplaced. The controlling difference, the court stated, between Parr’s circumstances and the petitioner in Rodriguez is that Parr is in prison, confined and his conviction is final. The petitioner in Rodriguez was not confined or being physically restrained in his liberty when the trial court, acting under the authority of Article 11.05 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article V �8 of the Texas Constitution, granted an out-of-time appeal. The court stated that the writ must be brought under Article 11.07 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. An Article 11.07 writ must be sent to the CCA, because that court has the exclusive authority to grant post-felony conviction relief, such as an out-of-time appeal, if the defendant is then confined as a result of that final felony conviction. OPINION:Gray, C.J.; Gray, C.J., Vance and Trudo, J.J.

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.