Moncier, Daniel Dewayne
WR-19,590-04
| Tex. App. | Apr 27, 2015Background
- Applicant Daniel Dewayne Moncier (pro se, incarcerated) filed a subsequent state habeas application (filed Dec. 2014; docketed Mar. 26, 2015) challenging his 1984 conviction and custody.
- Moncier alleges the trial-court clerk initially lost his application and later failed to serve him with the trial judge’s recommendation or otherwise notify him of the trial-court disposition.
- Core claim: Moncier argues his sentence became void due to the 1989 enactment of H.B. 2335 and a purported failure to validly transfer custody from the Texas Department of Corrections (TDC) to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), producing a claim for false imprisonment and immediate release.
- State (Collin County DA) responded that the claims are successive and could/should have been raised in prior filings (1995 and 1999); the State contends Moncier must show factual or legal unavailability through reasonable diligence to proceed.
- Moncier asserts he could not have discovered the legal/factual basis earlier because prison law library materials were stripped and he only learned the theory from a jailhouse ‘writ writer’ (John Rod Thomas) within the last ~15 months.
- Procedural relief requested: order compelling clerk to serve the trial-court recommendation, tolling of rules, consideration of the traverse to the DA’s response, and immediate release if the Court finds his sentence void.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Moncier’s sentence is void because custody was not validly transferred to TDCJ after H.B. 2335 (1989) | Moncier: H.B. 2335 failed to effect a lawful custody transfer, so his sentence was void as of Sept. 1, 1989; he is falsely imprisoned and entitled to release | State: The claim is successive and could have been raised earlier; Moncier must show the factual or legal basis was unavailable through reasonable diligence | Not decided in the provided filings (claim presented to the court; disposition not included) |
| Whether Moncier was denied notice/service of the trial-court recommendation | Moncier: Clerk lost initial application and failed to serve him with the judge’s recommendation; asks this Court to order service | State: (implicit) procedural default and successive-application arguments; does not concede service failure | Not decided in the provided filings |
| Whether the subsequent application is barred as successive (availability/diligence rule) | Moncier: Bases were not ascertainable earlier because prison library was stripped and he relied on jailhouse legal assistance; therefore factual/legal bases were unavailable despite reasonable diligence | State: Applicant should have raised these claims in 1995/1999 applications; absent showing of unavailability, claims are barred | Not decided in the provided filings |
| Whether lack of a return writ and lack of an in-person hearing deprived Moncier of the opportunity to orally traverse the State’s response | Moncier: No writ was issued to return him for a hearing, so he lacked the opportunity to orally respond under Art. 11.49; this deprived due process | State: (implicit) denial via procedural posture; treats issues as successive rather than addressing hearing deficiency | Not decided in the provided filings |
Key Cases Cited
- Huang v. Johnson, 251 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2001) (discusses availability of relief for certain custody/false-imprisonment claims)
- Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1 (1998) (standing and federal habeas principles regarding custody and mootness)