Ex Parte Milton Lee Gardner
10-15-00372-CV
| Tex. App. | Oct 12, 2016Background
- Milton Lee Gardner was adjudicated delinquent in 1996 for assault on a peace officer and committed to the Texas Youth Commission until age 21; he is now serving a 60-year sentence for aggravated assault.
- In April 2015 Gardner unsuccessfully sought relief under art. 11.07 (Court of Criminal Appeals) and in June 2015 filed a state-habeas petition under the Texas Constitution challenging the juvenile adjudication (claiming denial of a jury-trial waiver).
- The State raised laches; the trial court denied Gardner’s habeas petition, and Gardner appealed to the Tenth Court of Appeals.
- Key factual problems: no signed jury-waiver in the juvenile clerk’s record; court reporter’s notes were destroyed; prosecutor lacks specific recollection; original judge is retired; defense counsel’s files were destroyed years later.
- Gardner waited nearly 20 years to raise the jury-waiver claim and did not appeal the juvenile adjudication, and many records were destroyed before his habeas filing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether habeas alleging denial of jury trial at juvenile adjudication is barred by laches | Gardner: delay not unreasonable; under Carrio State must show particularized prejudice; no such prejudice exists | State: Perez removed the particularized-prejudice requirement; long delay prejudiced State because evidence and witnesses lost and records destroyed | Court: Laches applies; almost 20-year delay was unreasonable and prejudiced State; habeas barred |
| Whether civil laches standard should apply because juvenile proceedings are civil | Gardner: juvenile proceedings are civil so civil laches (requiring detrimental change and good faith) should govern | State: criminal laches principles apply (per Perez/Smith) but result supports laches under either standard | Court: Did not decide which standard controls because State prevails under either; laches found under both standards |
| Whether absence of a written waiver renders adjudication void | Gardner: no written waiver in record means bench adjudication void | State: oral waiver permissible under Family Code; passage of time and destroyed evidence prevent State from defending claim | Court: Even if oral waiver occurred, inability to prove or disprove after long delay prejudices State; laches bars relief |
| Whether two additional claims (failure to advise re: sealing; insufficient trial prep time) are preserved for appeal | Gardner: appellate complaints raised | State: claims were not raised in habeas petition below so not preserved | Court: Claims not preserved under Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a); overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Carrio, 992 S.W.2d 486 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (discussed prior laches approach requiring particularized prejudice)
- Ex parte Perez, 398 S.W.3d 206 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (adopted criminal laches standard without requiring particularized prejudice)
- Ex parte Smith, 444 S.W.3d 661 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (applies Perez laches framework)
- In re Laibe Corp., 307 S.W.3d 314 (Tex. 2010) (civil laches elements explained)
- Callahan v. Giles, 155 S.W.2d 793 (Tex. 1941) (equity aids the diligent; laches principle)