Justin Murphy v. State
03-15-00105-CR
| Tex. App. | Apr 3, 2015Background
- In 2007 Justin Murphy was convicted after pleading no contest to DWI; he later claimed his counsel (Sandra Ritz) was ineffective for failing to investigate a sleep disorder (narcolepsy) that he says caused him to fall asleep in his car.
- Murphy retained new counsel (Adam Reposa) after a 2013 DWI arrest; Reposa sought habeas relief attacking the 2007 conviction based on an alleged undiagnosed sleep disorder and prior counsel’s failure to investigate.
- After evidentiary hearings, the trial court issued findings and conclusions on August 28, 2014, concluding Ritz’s representation met minimum competence and that Murphy’s plea was voluntary.
- The court also invoked laches (Ex Parte Perez) to bar relief because roughly seven years had passed and there was no impediment to earlier filing.
- In January–February 2015 Murphy filed additional pleadings (a second habeas petition, motion to reconsider, and motion for rehearing); the trial court denied further evidentiary hearing on February 9, 2015.
- Murphy filed a notice of appeal on February 10, 2015, seeking review of the August 2014 order; the State moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.2.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of appeal | Murphy: later filings/rehearing request and difficulty locating findings delayed filing; notice filed after court denied rehearing, so appeal is of denial | State: notice was filed more than 30 days after the August 2014 order; post-judgment motions did not extend the 30-day deadline | Court has no jurisdiction because notice was untimely; appeal should be dismissed |
| Applicability of laches | Murphy: substantive ineffectiveness claim (sleep disorder) warrants relief despite delay | State/Trial Court: petitioner offered no impediment to earlier filing; seven-year delay prejudices ability to litigate | Trial court properly applied laches (Ex Parte Perez) to bar relief |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Murphy: Ritz failed to investigate sleep disorder and coerced plea; expert later diagnosed narcolepsy | Ritz/State: trial record shows investigation into bar fight/head injury, defendant voluntarily chose plea; counsel’s performance was within competent range | Court found Ritz’s representation fell within competent range; plea was voluntary |
| Effect of post-judgment motions on appellate deadline | Murphy: subsequent motions justify or tolled appellate timing | State: motions (motion to reconsider; rehearing request) are not appealable orders that reset the 30-day clock (Cowsert) | Post-judgment filings did not extend the Rule 26.2 deadline; notice was untimely |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex Parte Perez, 398 S.W.3d 206 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (laches can bar delayed habeas claims)
- Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (timely filing of notice of appeal is jurisdictional)
- Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (failure to timely perfect appeal deprives appellate court of jurisdiction)
- State v. Cowsert, 207 S.W.3d 347 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (post-judgment motions to reconsider do not automatically extend appellate deadlines)