Sledge, Ex Parte Casey Tyrone
2013 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 156
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2013Background
- Applicant Casey Sledge was placed on deferred adjudication for sexual assault of a child after a plea bargain.
- The trial court later adjudicated guilt and sentenced five years for alleged new offenses, without an appeal by Sledge.
- Sledge filed an initial post-conviction habeas corpus application (Article 11.07) alleging insufficient evidence to support the conviction.
- In 2012, this Court denied the initial writ without a written order; he now files a subsequent post-conviction application challenging lack of jurisdiction to revoke deferred adjudication due to late capias issuance.
- Langston v. State holds jurisdiction is lost if the capias is not issued before the probationary period expires.
- The Court concludes it cannot reach the merits because the abuse of the writ doctrine (Article 11.07, §4) bars consideration of a subsequent application absent one of the enumerated exceptions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court may reach merits of a subsequent writ | Sledge seeks merits despite §4 bar | Abuse of the writ doctrine bars merits | barred from merits; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether new-law exception allows relief | There is a new legal basis not available earlier | No new, valid basis shown | No relief; new-law exception not satisfied |
| Whether new-facts exception applies | A new factual basis exists not discoverable earlier | Applicant could have discovered facts with reasonable diligence earlier | No relief; new-facts exception not satisfied |
| Whether innocence exception applies | Actual innocence could defeat bar | Applicant did not establish prima facie actual innocence | No relief; innocence exception not satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- Langston v. State, 800 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (capias timing affects jurisdiction to adjudicate)
- Ex parte Davis, 947 S.W.2d 216 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (legislature may regulate post-conviction review and abuse of the writ)
- Ex parte Blue, 230 S.W.3d 151 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (limits on claims in subsequent writs in death-penalty context; informs §4 analysis)
- Ex parte Brooks, 219 S.W.3d 396 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (innocence and constitutional-violation criteria for actual innocence exception)
- Ex parte Banks, 769 S.W.2d 539 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (jurisdictional and systemic requirements in habeas context)
- Ex parte Crispen, 777 S.W.2d 103 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (evolution of cognizability in post-conviction review)
- Coit v. State, 808 S.W.2d 473 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (legislative authority to regulate post-conviction habeas corpus)