Perez, Ex Parte Alberto Giron
398 S.W.3d 206
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2013Background
- Perez was convicted of murder; direct appeal affirmed in 1992.
- In 2011, Perez filed a post-conviction 11.07 writ asserting appellate counsel failed to notify him of the conviction's affirmance in time to file a discretionary review (PDR).
- State contends laches bars the habeas petition due to lengthy delay and prejudicial impact.
- Trial court found counsel failed to timely notify and that Perez could have pursued an out-of-time PDR in 1993 but did not; court also found State prejudice due to impaired ability to retry.
- Court adopts Texas common-law laches, expands prejudice to include all circumstances harming the State’s position, and remands for additional evidence from both sides.
- Court remanded to allow further evidence and balanced consideration of equities before ruling on laches suitability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether laches can bar an out-of-time PDR in habeas relief | Perez: laches should not bar review without showing specific prejudice to arguments. | State: revised laches standard should allow prejudice to retry and overall equities. | Yes; laches may bar if prejudice and delay exist under flexible, case-by-case analysis. |
| What prejudice is applicable under the revised laches standard | Perez argues prejudice to the State’s ability to retry is not required. | State contends broad prejudice—including retry prejudice—should be considered. | Prejudice can include all forms that place the State in a less favorable position, including retry prejudice. |
| Whether Texas adopts common-law laches vs. federal Rule 9(a) standard | Texas should not rely on rigid federal standard; adopt common law. | State argues for broader, yet still principled, consideration of prejudice. | Adopt Texas common-law laches; abandon federal Rule 9(a) framework. |
| Role of five-year delay in applying laches | Delays beyond five years should not automatically bar relief. | Extended delays may justify applying laches given prejudice. | No automatic five-year cutoff; five years noted as general consideration, but not dispositive. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Carrio, 992 S.W.2d 486 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (established laches in habeas context and influence on standards in Texas)
- Caldwell v. Barnes, 975 S.W.2d 535 (Tex. 1998) (two elements of laches: unreasonable delay and prejudice from delay)
- Ex parte Galvan, 770 S.W.2d 822 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (illustrates equitable relief considerations in delay)
- Ex parte Moreno, 245 S.W.3d 419 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (State has interest in finality of convictions)
- Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (1992) (conveys reliability concerns in post-conviction delay context)
- Ex parte Emmons, 660 S.W.2d 106 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) (equitable basis for relief balancing fairness and finality)
- Ex parte Scott, 190 S.W.3d 672 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (discretion to grant equitable relief where warranted)
- Ex parte Florentino, 206 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (recognition of delay considerations in laches context)