Ex Parte Gonzalez
323 S.W.3d 557
| Tex. App. | 2010Background
- Gonzalez sought habeas relief under article 11.072 from a deferred adjudication for indecency with a child.
- The trial court denied relief without holding a hearing.
- Gonzalez argues the court resolved controverted facts against him without an evidentiary hearing.
- Art. 11.072 authorizes the court to use affidavits, depositions, interrogatories, or a hearing, and may rely on the court's recollection.
- The court adopts the precedent that no evidentiary hearing is required to resolve controverted facts under 11.072 where the same judge presided over the trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 11.072 requires an evidentiary hearing when the habeas judge presided over the trial. | Gonzalez: hearing necessary to resolve facts. | Gonzalez: no hearing required; judge may rely on record and recollection. | No evidentiary hearing required; affirmation. |
| Whether Herrera claims with newly discovered innocence evidence necessitate a hearing if the same judge presides. | Herrera claim may require a hearing with new innocence evidence. | If the same judge presides, no hearing is required. | No evidentiary hearing required; Herrera claim with new innocence evidence may be decided without a hearing when the same judge presides. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Cummins, 169 S.W.3d 752 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2005) (11.072 treated like 11.07; no automatic hearing requirement)
- Ex parte Davila, 530 S.W.2d 543 (Tex.Crim.App. 1975) (trial court may resolve controverted facts without a hearing)
- Ex parte Brown, 662 S.W.2d 3 (Tex.Crim.App. 1983) (hearing not automatically required under 11.07)
- Ex parte Franklin, 310 S.W.3d 918 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2010) (innocence evidence in Herrera context; hearing not mandated when judge presides)
- Ex parte Medrano, 67 S.W.3d 892 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002) (statutory language construed to reflect judicial interpretation)