Smith, Al Letroy ( 2015 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
NO. WR-79,465-01
EX PARTE AL LETROY SMITH, Applicant
ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
FROM CAUSE NO. 43,986-A IN THE 47TH DISTRICT COURT
POTTER COUNTY
Per curiam.
ORDER
Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the
clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte
Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). After filing and setting Applicant’s
application, this Court held that a court may sua sponte consider whether laches should bar an
applicant’s claim. Ex parte Smith, ___ S.W.3d ___, No. WR-79,465-01 (Tex. Crim. App. Oct. 1,
2014). Because this Court held that equity requires giving Smith an opportunity to explain his delay
and the current record was silent on the circumstances that may excuse his delay, Smith’s application
was remanded to the habeas court to make findings of fact and conclusions of law consistent with
the Smith opinion. This Court further requested the habeas court to supplement the record with any
2
affidavits, interrogatories, documents, and transcripts.
On February 2, 2015, this Court received the habeas judge’s supplemental findings of fact
and conclusions of law. Among the judge’s other mainly historical findings, the judge found that,
“As explanation for the 10 ½ year delay from conviction to the habeas application, applicant, through
newly-appointed counsel, points only to his misplaced reliance ‘on the care and vigilance’ of former
appellate counsel Wilson.” The habeas judge concluded that Applicant’s delay “did not result from
justifiable excuse or excusable neglect” and recommended that relief be denied.
Because the record was not supplemented beyond the bare findings and conclusions, we
cannot conclude that the judge’s findings and conclusions are supported by the record. Although the
judge’s findings indicate that Applicant was given some sort of opportunity to respond, the record
is silent as to the nature of this opportunity and lacks any substantive evidence of it. A supplemental
transcript containing all affidavits and interrogatories or the transcription of the court reporter’s notes
from any hearing or deposition, shall be returned to this Court within 30 days of the date of this
order. Any extensions of time shall be obtained from this Court.
Filed: April 15, 2015
Do not publish