Ex Parte Alberto Giron PEREZ
2014 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1509
Tex. Crim. App.2014Background
- Perez was convicted of murder in 1991 and sentenced to 85 years; the conviction was affirmed in 1992.
- In 2011, Perez filed a long-delayed post-conviction habeas corpus application asserting ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.
- Texas Supreme Court revised laches standards for long-delayed habeas petitions in Ex parte Perez, adopting a flexible totality-of-the-circumstances approach.
- On remand, the trial court found that Perez’s delay was unreasonable and prejudiced the State, with faded memories and lost evidence hindering retrial.
- The Court independently reviewed the record and adopted the trial court’s laches findings, denying relief based on a 20-year delay and prejudice to the State.
- There is a dissent arguing laches should not bar relief, emphasizing lack of statutory time limits and potential injustice to indigent defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the application is barred by laches under Texas common law | Perez seeks relief despite long delay | State asserts prejudice and finality justify laches | Yes; laches bars relief under totality-of-circumstances analysis |
| Whether Perez’s delay was unreasonable and unjustified | Delay was excusable due to lack of access to records | Delay was inexcusable given prior legal familiarity and actions | Unreasonable and unjustified |
| Whether the State was prejudiced by the delay in retrial | Prejudice is not proven by delay alone | Prejudice shown by lost evidence and faded memories | Prejudice established; favors laches |
| Whether finality interests weigh against relief | Finality should not bar potentially meritorious relief | Societal interest in finality weighs against relief | Finality weighs against relief |
| Whether other equitable factors support relief | New evidence or innocence could warrant relief | No compelling equitable reasons apart from delay | No additional equitable reasons; relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Perez, 898 S.W.3d 206 (Tex.Crim.App.2013) (adopted Texas common-law laches standard for post-conviction habeas)
- Ex parte Carrio, 992 S.W.2d 486 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (two elements of laches; prejudice plus unreasonable delay)
- Ex parte Reed, 271 S.W.3d 698 (Tex.Crim.App.2008) (deference to trial court findings when supported by the record)
- Ex parte Thompson, 153 S.W.3d 416 (Tex.Crim.App.2005) (credibility determinations in habeas proceedings)
- Caldwell v. Barnes, 975 S.W.2d 535 (Tex.1998) (prejudice and delay considerations in laches)
- Rideau v. Whitley, 237 F.3d 472 (5th Cir.2000) (federal laches standards cited in comparative context)
- Walters v. Scott, 21 F.3d 683 (5th Cir.1994) (federal prejudice standard for laches)