Ex Parte Richard Anthony Baldez, 510 S.W.3d 477

Applicant Richard Anthony Baldez was convicted of misdemeanor DWI; sentence: 180 days in jail probated for 8 months and $500 fine. A panel of this court previously affirmed the conviction.
Baldez filed a pro se post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.072 (misdemeanor community-supervision cases).
The trial court denied the writ by written order on June 25, 2013, stating the applicant was "manifestly entitled to no relief," that all matters could be determined from the appellate record, and that no hearing was necessary.
Article 11.072, § 7(a) requires that if the court finds the applicant "manifestly entitled to no relief," it must deny the application "as frivolous;" otherwise the court must include findings of fact and conclusions of law.
The trial court’s order did not expressly label the application as "frivolous" nor did it include findings of fact and conclusions of law, rendering the order unclear under the statute.
The appellate court abated the appeal and remanded to the trial court to clarify its June 25, 2013 order consistent with article 11.072, § 7(a), and to file any findings/orders in a supplemental clerk’s record within 30 days.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court complied with art. 11.072, § 7(a) when it found applicant was "manifestly entitled to no relief" but did not label the application "frivolous" or include findings of fact and conclusions of law	Baldez: A "manifestly entitled to no relief" finding requires the order to deny the application "as frivolous," or alternatively the court must include findings of fact and conclusions of law	Trial court (implicitly): Denied relief based on the face of the application and appellate record; did not enter "frivolous" label or written findings/conclusions	Court: Order unclear and noncompliant with § 7(a); abated appeal and directed trial court to clarify by either entering a frivolous denial or providing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and to file them in a supplemental clerk’s record

Kniatt v. State, 206 S.W.3d 657 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (abuse-of-discretion standard for habeas writ rulings)
Ex parte Cummins, 169 S.W.3d 752 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005) (standard of review for post-conviction writ rulings)
Baldez v. State, 386 S.W.3d 324 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2012) (prior panel opinion affirming conviction)
Ex parte Enriquez, 227 S.W.3d 779 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2005) (statutory requirement: "manifestly entitled to no relief" must be denoted as "frivolous")
Ex parte Jones, 367 S.W.3d 696 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2012) (procedural guidance on art. 11.072 § 7(a) compliance)