Ex Parte: David Mark Davis, II
2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 11757
| Tex. App. | 2016Background
- David Mark Davis II received a speeding ticket (Jan 17, 2015), pleaded no contest in Lufkin Municipal Court, and appealed to the county court at law.
- He pleaded no contest again in the county court at law, was found guilty, and fined $100 in a March 31, 2015 judgment.
- Davis filed a direct appeal to this Court; the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on April 29, 2016.
- Davis then filed an application for writ of habeas corpus in the Angelina County district court seeking to vacate the misdemeanor conviction; the district court held a hearing and denied relief.
- On appeal from the district court, Davis argued (among five issues) that he was "restrained" or suffering collateral consequences (e.g., higher insurance premiums) sufficient to support habeas relief; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Collateral consequences / restraint sufficient for habeas | Davis: owing a fine and suffering higher insurance rates/loss of status constitutes restraint or collateral consequence supporting habeas | State: Davis not confined or restrained; alleged collateral effects (insurance, embarrassment) insufficient | Held: Davis failed to prove confinement or serious collateral legal consequences; habeas denied |
| Authority of Lufkin Municipal Court / district court | Davis: challenges to municipal/district courts' authority over his case | State: courts had authority and proceedings were regular | Held: Not reached (dispositive first issue) |
| Validity of plea | Davis: plea was invalid for reasons raised on appeal | State: plea valid; conviction stands | Held: Not reached |
| Admissibility of evidence | Davis: evidence issues claimed in record | State: evidence admissible / procedural default | Held: Not reached |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Wheeler, 203 S.W.3d 317 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (standard of review for habeas denial)
- Ex parte Richardson, 70 S.W.3d 865 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (applicant bears burden by preponderance to obtain postconviction habeas relief)
- Ex parte Harrington, 310 S.W.3d 452 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (serious collateral employment consequences can constitute restraint)
- Ex parte Rinkevich, 222 S.W.3d 900 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007) (habeas available for collateral legal consequences)
- Ex parte Davis, 748 S.W.2d 555 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1988) (denial of entry into military as confinement/restraint)
- Crawford v. Campbell, 124 S.W.3d 778 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003) (embarrassment and possible lost promotion do not meet requisite collateral consequence)
- Dahesh v. State, 51 S.W.3d 300 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000) (denial of expunction petition does not constitute confinement or restraint)
- Ex parte Ali, 368 S.W.3d 827 (Tex. App.—Austin 2012) (abuse of discretion standard for habeas review)