Hines, Joseph Barnard
WR-55,762-14
Tex. App.May 26, 2015Background
- Relator Joseph Barnard Hines (inmate) filed a second/supplemental Article 11.07 habeas application challenging a 1999 aggravated sexual-assault conviction and life sentence. He was originally arrested and processed as a juvenile and later transferred to adult criminal court.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals granted leave to supplement the 11.07 application and gave Hines a deadline to file; Hines mailed supplemental materials in April 2015 and sought confirmation of receipt.
- Hines contends the juvenile court abused its discretion in waiving juvenile jurisdiction because the transfer order contained only boilerplate language (stating the offense was serious and against a person) and lacked specific factual findings required by Tex. Fam. Code §54.02(h).
- Hines argues that, because the transfer order lacked the required specific findings and certification, the adult criminal court never acquired jurisdiction and the resulting conviction and sentence are void. He frames this as a gateway actual-innocence claim under Art. 11.07 §4(a)(2): but‑for the constitutional violation (lack of jurisdiction/due process), no rational juror would have convicted.
- Procedurally, Hines alleges the district clerk failed to transmit his supplemental filings promptly; he sought mandamus relief ordering the clerk to forward the supplemental application and records to the Court of Criminal Appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Hines' Argument | Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile transfer order satisfied statutory and due‑process requirements (i.e., stated specific reasons/findings) | Hines: transfer order was boilerplate and omitted required specific findings; juvenile court abused discretion, so transfer was invalid | Respondent (implied): transfer/order was sufficient and juvenile waiver was valid (or at least not void) | Court (order grants relief to compel transmission): court found relator entitled to have supplemental writ transmitted; merits remand issues reserved for habeas process (mandamus granted to force clerk to transmit filings) |
| Whether a transfer defect renders subsequent adult conviction void for lack of jurisdiction | Hines: a juvenile waiver without required specific findings means adult court lacked jurisdiction and conviction is void; thus he meets §11.07(a)(2) gateway | Respondent (implied): jurisdictional challenge must be proven and may be subject to procedural bars; not automatically dispositive | Hines preserved and argued the jurisdictional claim as a gateway innocence claim; habeas route appropriate for adjudication of that claim |
| Whether Hines made the §11.07(a)(2) “actual‑innocence” (gateway) showing by preponderance | Hines: by showing lack of jurisdiction/due‑process, he satisfies the preponderance standard — no rational juror could have convicted | Respondent (implied): the showing is demanding; mere procedural defects may not meet the threshold without evidentiary support | Court allowed transmission and supplementation so the claim may be considered on the habeas merits (gateway adequacy not finally decided in the mandamus order) |
| Whether the district clerk must immediately transmit the supplemental habeas filings to the CCA | Hines: clerk had a ministerial duty under Art. 11.07 §3(c) and related rules to forward filings and records; failure justifies mandamus | Chris Daniel/District Clerk: (implied) administrative delay or processing reasons for not transmitting immediately | Court (presiding judge/proposed order): granted Hines mandamus relief ordering the district clerk to immediately transmit the supplemental application and exhibits to the Court of Criminal Appeals |
Key Cases Cited
- Moon v. State, 410 S.W.3d 366 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013) (discusses required transfer‑order specificity and appellate meaningful review)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (juvenile sentencing principles relevant to Eighth Amendment and consideration of youth)
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (juvenile culpability and sentencing distinctions between juveniles and adults)
- Ex parte Brooks, 219 S.W.3d 396 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (Article 11.07 gateway/actual‑innocence framework)
- Ex parte Whiteside, 12 S.W.3d 821 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (application of successive‑writ limitations under Art. 11.07 §4)
- Hoang v. State, 872 S.W.2d 694 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (judgment rendered by a court lacking jurisdiction is void)
- Gallagher v. State, 690 S.W.2d 587 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (voidness of judgments entered without jurisdiction)