Harbin, James Berkeley Ii, WR-82,672-01

Applicant James Berkeley Harbin II was convicted of murdering his father in January 1991, received a life sentence, and the conviction was affirmed on direct appeal in 1992.
Harbin filed his first state habeas application on June 24, 2010—about 19 years after his conviction became final—and filed multiple amendments through 2014.
The trial court signed Harbin’s proposed findings on December 16, 2014, recommending relief on ineffective-assistance and Brady claims and finding laches did not bar relief.
On June 3, 2015, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (per curiam) granted relief, adopting the trial court’s findings and rejecting laches (citing Ex parte Perez).
The State moved for rehearing, arguing the writ is a “classic laches case”: Harbin unreasonably delayed nearly 20 years, important files and witnesses are lost or deceased, memory has faded, and the delay prejudices the State and any potential retrial.
The State also disputes the sufficiency of proof for Brady nondisclosure (no evidence that items were undisclosed), and contends the trial court improperly excused Harbin’s delay based on an open-file justification that did not support his initial claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Applicability of laches (timeliness)	Harbin: delay excused—open-file access after 2008 enabled claim development	State: ~20-year delay was unreasonable, no adequate justification, courts may consider laches sua sponte	CCA (per curiam): relief granted; laches should not bar relief (trial court found laches inapplicable)
Brady nondisclosure	Harbin: State failed to disclose favorable/exculpatory materials found in State file	State: No proof those materials were undisclosed; records and counsel files missing so nondisclosure not established	Trial court found a Brady violation and CCA granted relief; State contests sufficiency of proof
Prejudice to the State / retrial viability	Harbin: did not establish State prejudice sufficient to bar relief	State: Delay caused lost evidence, deceased witnesses, faded memories—prejudices State and future retrial	Trial court gave limited treatment to State prejudice; CCA granted relief without addressing State’s prejudice arguments; State seeks rehearing
Justification for delay / relation to open-file policy	Harbin: waited until State files became accessible (post-2008) and then pursued claims	State: Initial 2010/2013 claims were not based on open-file discoveries; open-file excuse is disingenuous and does not explain decades-long inaction	Trial court credited Harbin’s justification; State argues that finding is unsupported and seeks reconsideration

Ex parte Perez, 398 S.W.3d 206 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (delay of more than five years may be unreasonable and laches analysis appropriate)
Ex parte Perez, 445 S.W.3d 719 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (applicant’s lengthy delay and State prejudice can bar equitable relief)
Ex parte Smith, 444 S.W.3d 661 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (a court may sua sponte consider whether laches bars relief)
Ex parte Moss, 446 S.W.3d 786 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (laches and timeliness are central equitable considerations on habeas)
Ex parte Bowman, 447 S.W.3d 887 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (equity requires consideration of unreasonable delay when evaluating habeas relief)