Wolfgramm, Samuel ( 2023 )


Menu:
  •       In the Court of Criminal
    Appeals of Texas
    ══════════
    No. WR-94,153-01
    ══════════
    EX PARTE SAMUEL WOLFGRAMM,
    Applicant
    ═══════════════════════════════════════
    On Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
    Cause No. 1005691-A in the 174th District Court
    From Harris County
    ═══════════════════════════════════════
    YEARY, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which SLAUGHTER, J.,
    joined.
    Applicant was convicted in 2005 of theft and sentenced to one year
    imprisonment. Applicant did not appeal his conviction. In January of
    2011, Applicant filed an application for writ of habeas corpus in the
    county of conviction. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07. In his
    application, he alleges that his plea was involuntary and that he
    WOLFGRAMM – 2
    received ineffective assistance of counsel.
    Today, the Court remands this application to the trial court to
    further develop the record. I join the Court’s remand order. But I write
    separately to address my thoughts concerning the doctrine of laches and
    its possible application to this case. See Ex parte Smith, 
    444 S.W.3d 661
    ,
    663 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (holding a trial court has the authority to
    sua sponte consider the doctrine of laches); Ex parte Bazille, ___ S.W.3d
    ___, No. WR-89,851-02, 
    2022 WL 108348
    , at *1 (Tex. Crim. App. Jan. 12,
    2022) (Yeary, J., concurring).
    The doctrine of laches ought to be considered in a case like this
    one. Applicant’s trial occurred in 2005, but this writ application was not
    filed until almost six years later. 1 The record is also silent regarding
    circumstances that may excuse Applicant’s delay, and at least some
    explanation for the long delay in filing should be provided. Consistent
    with this Court’s precedent, the trial court “may sua sponte consider and
    determine whether laches should bar relief.” Smith, 
    444 S.W.3d at 667
    .
    If the trial court does so, it must give Applicant the opportunity to
    explain the reasons for the delay and give the State’s prosecutors and/or
    former counsel for Applicant an opportunity to state whether
    Applicant’s delay has caused any prejudice to their ability to defend
    against Applicant’s claims. 
    Id. at 670
    . And ultimately, the trial court
    may include findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning the
    1 “Our revised approach will permit courts to more broadly consider the
    diminished memories of trial participants and the diminished availability of
    the State’s evidence, both of which may often be said to occur beyond five years
    after a conviction becomes final.” Ex parte Perez, 
    398 S.W.3d 206
    , 216 (Tex.
    Crim. App. 2013) (citing Ex parte Steptoe, 
    132 S.W.3d 434
    , 437–39 (Tex. Crim.
    App. 2004) (Cochran, J., dissenting)).
    WOLFGRAMM – 3
    doctrine of laches in its response to this Court’s remand order.
    With these additional thoughts, I join the Court’s order.
    FILED:                                  January 11, 2023
    DO NOT PUBLISH
    

Document Info

Docket Number: WR-94,153-01

Filed Date: 1/11/2023

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 1/16/2023