Florence, Thomas Wayne
WR-63,775-18
| Tex. | Jun 16, 2015Background
- Petitioner Tommy Lee Dora was convicted of burglary in Dallas County (Dec. 4, 1970) and received a mandatory life sentence under enhancement based on an earlier conviction.
- Dora's direct appeal from the Dallas conviction was affirmed in Dora v. State, 477 S.W.2d 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972).
- Dora filed successive postconviction habeas applications challenging the validity of a 1962 Lubbock County burglary conviction used for enhancement.
- The trial court in Lubbock County denied Dora's later habeas application, finding it presented no new grounds and repeated claims previously rejected.
- This Court (Tex. Crim. App.) had earlier dismissed a prior application and held Dora had abused the writ by repeatedly raising the same claims; the court warned it would refuse to accept further applications from him unless he showed good cause.
- In the instant filing, Dora did not show new facts or good cause for refiling; the Court therefore dismissed the application with prejudice and will not entertain further postconviction applications unless Dora first demonstrates the claims were not previously raised or could not have been raised earlier.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the later habeas application raised new grounds sufficient to overcome prior abuse-of-writ dismissal | Dora argued the instant challenge to the prior (1962) conviction warranted review | State argued the application repeats previously raised claims and shows no new facts or good cause | Court held application raised no new issues; dismissed with prejudice for abuse of the writ |
| Whether the court may refuse to file successive habeas applications from a petitioner previously found to have abused the writ | Dora implicitly sought filing and review of the petition | State relied on the prior curiam and doctrine restricting successive filings absent good cause | Court held it may refuse to accept or file future postconviction applications from Dora unless he first shows good cause |
| Standard for filing successive postconviction applications after abuse-of-writ citation | Dora did not present specific factual showing entitling him to relief or good-cause facts | State maintained petitioner must state facts which, if true, would entitle relief and must show good cause for refiling | Court required a showing of good cause and that allegations, if true, would entitle relief; absent that, petition not filed or considered |
| Effect of prior dismissal with prejudice on later habeas filings | Dora attempted to relitigate the same enhancement-conviction issues | State relied on prior dismissal and precedent barring repetitive claims | Court affirmed dismissal with prejudice and barred further filings until good cause shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Dora v. State, 477 S.W.2d 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972) (direct appeal affirming petitioner’s Dallas conviction)
- Ex parte Dora, 548 S.W.2d 393 (Tex. Crim. App.) (opinion addressing successive habeas applications and abuse of the writ)
- Ex parte Can., 511 S.W.2d 623 (Tex. Crim. App.) (holding petitioner abused the writ by repeatedly raising same claims)
- Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1963) (governmental authority on collateral-attack and collateral estoppel principles in postconviction context)