Moss, Jecia Javette
2014 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1761
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2014Background
- Jecia Javette Moss received deferred-adjudication community supervision for aggravated assault on October 4, 2000; supervision expired October 3, 2005.
- On the expiration date the judge signed a motion to adjudicate and an order directing the district clerk to issue a capias; the clerk’s actual capias is dated October 6, 2005 (after expiration).
- Moss was later adjudicated guilty, revoked, and sentenced to 12 years and a fine; she was allowed to remain at large briefly, filed an appeal, then absconded; appeal dismissed and she was arrested years later.
- Moss filed an initial habeas application asserting the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the capias issued after her supervision expired (and thus the court could not validly adjudicate her guilt).
- The State argued procedural default (Ex parte Townsend), laches due to Moss’s flight, and that Article 42.12 §5(h) preserves jurisdiction if motion filed and capias issued before expiration; the court addressed timeliness of the clerk-issued capias.
- The Court held the capias was issued after supervision expired, so the trial court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate Moss; the conviction was vacated and sentence discharged.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether procedural-forfeiture (Townsend) bars jurisdictional claim | Moss: her writ is the first opportunity to raise jurisdictional defect because she absconded and appeal was dismissed | State: Moss forfeited the claim by not raising it on direct appeal (citing Townsend) | Court: Townsend does not bar initial habeas jurisdictional claims; Moss may raise claim in initial writ |
| Whether laches bars relief given Moss’s delay and absconding | Moss: delay does not prejudice State; records and documents exist | State: laches applies; memories faded and prejudice after multi-year delay | Court: Laches does not apply—State not prejudiced and relief concerns documentary/legal issue |
| Interpretation of Art. 42.12 §5(h): Is jurisdiction retained if judge signed order directing clerk to issue capias before expiration but clerk issued capias after expiration? | Moss: clerk-issued capias must be issued before expiration; later issuance defeats jurisdiction | State: judge’s signed order and filing may suffice to retain jurisdiction | Court: Capias issuance timing is controlling; a capias issued after expiration means no jurisdiction |
| Effect of untimely capias on sentence | Moss: sentence is void because trial court lacked jurisdiction | State: (implicitly) conviction/sentence should stand or be analyzable on other grounds | Court: Judgment void; sentence discharged and conviction vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Townsend, 137 S.W.3d 79 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (procedural forfeiture of claims where adequate remedy at law existed)
- Ex parte Sledge, 391 S.W.3d 104 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (limits on successive writs and analysis of timeliness of capias issuance)
- Langston v. State, 800 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (trial court loses jurisdiction when clerk fails to issue capias before probationary period ends)
- Garcia v. State, 387 S.W.3d 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (statutory codification and interpretation of Article 42.12 §5(h))
- Guillot v. State, 543 S.W.2d 650 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976) (both motion and capias must be issued prior to probation termination)