Hansley, Michael Shayne
WR-82,887-01
| Tex. | Mar 19, 2015Background
- Michael Shayne Hansley (pro se) filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus challenging convictions in Galveston County cause nos. 11-CR-1177, 11-CR-1178, and 11-CR-1179.
- On Feb. 10, 2015 the trial court entered an order denying relief and the clerk forwarded the record to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
- On March 4, 2015 the Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed Hansley’s habeas application without written order, citing TRAP 73.1 for exceeding the 50-page limit for non-computer-generated memoranda.
- Hansley filed a pro se motion for rehearing/reinstatement (March 13, 2015) arguing the dismissal was improper because he had filed motions in the trial court to exceed the page limit and the trial court refused to rule.
- Hansley contends he complied with TRAP 73.1(d) by attempting to obtain trial-court permission to exceed the page limit and that the trial court’s failure to rule prevented cure before the clerk filed the record.
- He also argues the merits present a miscarriage of justice (citing Coleman and Murray) and asks the Court of Criminal Appeals to reinstate and rule on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal under TRAP 73.1 for exceeding the 50‑page limit was proper | Hansley: dismissal was improper because he filed motions in the trial court seeking permission to exceed the page limit and the trial court refused to rule; therefore he complied with Rule 73.1(d) | Court (as reflected by dismissal): application exceeded the page limit and was dismissed under TRAP 73.1 | The Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed the application without written order for the page‑limit violation; Hansley seeks rehearing/reinstatement (motion filed) |
| Whether a trial court’s refusal to rule on a motion to exceed page limits excuses noncompliance with TRAP 73.1(d) | Hansley: trial court’s failure to rule prevented him from curing the defect; he relied on filing the motion and cannot force a ruling; trial court lacks discretion to refuse to rule (invoking In re Shredder Co.) | Implicit: procedural rules require compliance and dismissal is an available remedy for noncompliance | Hansley argues the trial court’s alleged refusal to rule should excuse the procedural defect and warrant reinstatement; motion requests relief (no final appellate ruling on the rehearing included in this filing) |
| Whether the application raises a miscarriage-of-justice such that reinstatement is required to reach the merits | Hansley: claims establish a total miscarriage of justice and fundamental constitutional error; merits should be reached (cites Coleman, Murray) | Implicit: procedural default (page‑limit breach) bars consideration absent court discretion to reinstate | Hansley requests reinstatement so the Court of Criminal Appeals can adjudicate the constitutional claims on the merits |
| Whether Hansley complied with the procedural prerequisites of TRAP 73.1(d) by seeking leave below | Hansley: he filed at least two motions in the trial court demonstrating good cause to exceed the page limit | Implicit opposing view: the filing nevertheless violated the rule as presented to the appellate court | Hansley asserts compliance through motion practice below; the filings did not prevent dismissal by the appellate court (reinstatement requested) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Shredder Co., 225 S.W.3d 676 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2006) (trial court does not have discretion to refuse to rule on motions)
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (miscarriage-of-justice/fundamental miscarriage exception to procedural default)
- Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478 (1986) (cause and prejudice standard and actual-innocence/miscarriage-of-justice doctrine)