Dooley, Samuel Wade, WR-82,958-01

Background

Applicant Samuel Wade Dooley filed an application for writ of habeas corpus claiming he was denied due process because the Fifth Court of Appeals failed to notify him that his pro se motion for rehearing was denied, which restarted the deadline to file a Petition for Discretionary Review (PDR).
Appellate counsel sent a July 3, 2002 letter closing his file and notifying Dooley of appellate disposition; counsel later could not recall whether he (or anyone) notified Dooley of the denial of the pro se rehearing.
Dooley was in Tarrant County Jail (not TDCJ) when the rehearing was denied; Dooley contends relevant Tarrant County jail legal-mail logs were withheld by the State and would show no notice was received.
The convicting (trial) court adopted the State’s proposed order recommending denial, finding Dooley unreasonably delayed filing the writ, that the State was prejudiced in responding, and that the record indicated Dooley knew when the PDR was due.
Dooley objects pro se, arguing (1) the court of appeals’ failure to notify him of the rehearing denial controlled the PDR deadline under Tex. R. App. P. 68.2(a), so the earlier extension was moot; (2) laches/prejudice findings are unsupported because TDCJ records are immaterial and the State withheld Tarrant County mail logs; and (3) the convicting court focused improperly on counsel’s conduct instead of the court-of-appeals’ duty-to-notify due-process issue.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether failure of court of appeals to notify applicant of denial of pro se rehearing denied due process by restarting PDR deadline	Dooley: court of appeals’ failure to notify restarted PDR deadline (Rule 68.2(a)), so he lacked notice of October 7, 2002 deadline and was deprived of meaningful access	State: docket shows CCA granted extension to Sept. 2, 2002 and applicant therefore knew PDR due date; prejudice from delay	Convicting court found record indicated applicant knew PDR due and recommended denial for unreasonable delay and State prejudice (Dooley objects)
Whether laches prevents relief given passage of time	Dooley: laches not appropriate — State withheld material evidence (Tarrant jail logs) and applicant was not in TDCJ when rehearing denied; counsel’s memory is immaterial	State: claims prejudice responding to writ because counsel’s files disposed and records missing	Convicting court adopted State’s prejudice argument; Dooley disputes factual support for prejudice finding
Whether appellate counsel had post-filed-duty to notify applicant of rehearing denial	Dooley: counsel’s duty ended when he closed file (July 3, 2002); duty to notify of rehearing denial lay with court of appeals	State: argues counsel’s affidavit (and memory gaps) support prejudice and justify laches	Convicting court focused on counsel conduct per State’s submission; Dooley argues this misapplies his due-process claim
Whether Court of Criminal Appeals should hold application in abeyance / order evidentiary hearing	Dooley: requests abeyance and trial-court evidentiary hearing to resolve mail-log and notice facts	State: opposed (argues prejudice/unreasonable delay)	Trial court recommended denial; Dooley urges CCA to grant relief or hold case for evidentiary hearing — unresolved in the record provided

Key Cases Cited

Ex parte Jarrett, 891 S.W.2d 935 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (discusses counsel’s duty to notify client of appellate disposition)
Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (clarifies termination of counsel’s appellate duties)
Ross v. Moffitt, 417 U.S. 600 (U.S. 1974) (due-process principles on meaningful access to appellate procedures)
Ex parte Perez, 398 S.W.3d 206 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (Texas laches standard in post-conviction context)
State v. Munoz, 991 S.W.2d 818 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (discusses State obligations and evidentiary burdens where records withheld)
Ex parte Reed, 271 S.W.3d 698 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (trial-court findings in writs must be supported by the record)
Ex parte Wheeler, 203 S.W.3d 317 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (implied findings and standards for reviewing writ records)
Ex parte Simpson, 136 S.W.3d 660 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (appellate review duties and rejection of unsupported findings)
Reese v. State, 877 S.W.2d 328 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (due-process analysis referenced for access/notice issues)