Ex Parte Carol Ann Davis
09-15-00063-CR
Tex. App.Oct 14, 2015Background
- Carol Ann Davis was indicted for retaliation in Montgomery County and filed a pre-trial application for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the prosecution.
- The trial court denied the habeas application; Davis appealed.
- Davis raised three grounds: (1) the indictment fails to charge an offense under Texas law, (2) the alleged offense did not occur in Montgomery County (venue), and (3) the prosecution is barred by double jeopardy.
- The trial court characterized Davis’s arguments as factual/elemental challenges for a jury and concluded the petition did not present matters appropriate for pre-trial habeas relief.
- The record shows Davis was on bond at the time (so she was restrained in liberty for habeas purposes).
- The appellate court reviewed the denial for abuse of discretion and affirmed, finding Davis had not carried her burdens on the asserted grounds and that habeas was not the proper vehicle for her indictment/venue challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Double jeopardy | Prior related proceedings bar current prosecution | State/trial court: applicant must provide record proving offenses are the same; habeas applicant bears burden | Denied — Davis failed to supply prior records establishing commonality; burden not met |
| Indictment fails to charge an offense | Indictment does not allege statutory offense sufficient to invoke jurisdiction | Trial court: challenges to the sufficiency of an indictment are not ordinarily cognizable in pre-trial habeas (unless statute void or SOL bar) | Denied — habeas not proper vehicle for these claims |
| Venue (offense not in Montgomery County) | Events did not occur in Montgomery County; indictment defective for venue | Trial court: venue is an element for the jury to decide; factual dispute inappropriate for pre-trial habeas | Denied — venue/fact issues for jury; habeas inappropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Klem, 269 S.W.3d 711 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2008) (standards for appellate review of habeas denial and deference to trial court findings)
- Berrios-Torres v. State, 802 S.W.2d 91 (Tex. App.—Austin 1990) (double jeopardy plea does not establish alleged facts as true)
- Ex parte Infante, 151 S.W.3d 255 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2004) (defendant must provide record showing commonality for double jeopardy relief)
- Ex parte Gutierrez, 987 S.W.2d 227 (Tex. App.—Austin 1999) (applicant bears burden to present prior records to sustain double jeopardy claim)
- Ex parte Tamez, 38 S.W.3d 159 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (pre-trial habeas generally cannot be used to attack indictment except for statute-void or statute-of-limitations claims)
- Ex parte Robinson, 641 S.W.2d 552 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982) (a person on bond is restrained in liberty for purposes of article 11.01)