Hansley, Michael Shayne
WR-82,887-02
| Tex. App. | Mar 19, 2015Background
- Michael Shayne Hansley (pro se) filed a habeas application challenging convictions from the 212th Judicial District Court, Galveston County (cause nos. 11-CR-1177, 11-CR-1178, 11-CR-1179).
- The trial court entered a general denial on February 10, 2015, and forwarded records to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals about February 13, 2015.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed Hansley’s application on March 4, 2015 for violation of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 73.1 — the memorandum exceeded the 50-page limit for non-computer-generated filings.
- Hansley had filed motions in the trial court requesting permission to exceed the page limit and alleges the trial court refused to rule on those motions, preventing him from curing the defect before clerk transmission.
- Hansley argues dismissal was improper for a pro se litigant when the trial court failed to rule on his motions; he requests rehearing and reinstatement so the merits of his constitutional claims (alleged miscarriage of justice) can be considered.
- The filing includes a verification and certificate of service; the docket caption indicates the motion for rehearing was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal under TRAP 73.1 for exceeding the 50‑page limit was appropriate | Hansley: dismissal was improper because he timely filed motions to exceed the page limit in the trial court and the trial court refused to rule, so he could not comply before transmission | State/Court: application exceeded TRAP 73.1 page limits and was subject to dismissal | Court dismissed the habeas application for TRAP 73.1 violation; the motion for rehearing/reinstatement was denied |
| Whether pro se status and trial-court non‑ruling excuse procedural noncompliance | Hansley: pro se litigant who sought relief below satisfied Rule 73.1(d) and should not be penalized when trial court refused to rule | Implicit: procedural rule compliance required regardless of pro se status absent a court order granting extension | Court did not reinstate application; dismissal stood despite Hansley’s pro se arguments |
| Whether Hansley established cause and prejudice or actual miscarriage of justice to excuse procedural default | Hansley: asserted miscarriage of justice and constitutional claims warrant merits review (citing Coleman and Murray) | State: procedural dismissal precluded merits review | Court did not reach the merits; procedural dismissal remained effective |
| Whether trial court has no discretion to refuse to rule on motions | Hansley: cites In re Shredder Co. for proposition that trial court must rule; its refusal prevented compliance | State: record control and appellate rules enforcement support dismissal | Court did not reinstate application; Hansley’s contention about trial-court refusal did not secure relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (procedural default and miscarriage of justice standard)
- Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478 (1986) (cause-and-prejudice and actual innocence standards to overcome procedural default)
- In re Shredder Co., 225 S.W.3d 676 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2006) (trial court duty to rule on motions; discussion of consequences when court refuses to act)