Smith, Al Letroy
2014 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1470
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2014Background
- Smith waited over ten years to assert habeas claims that his right to direct appeal and effective assistance of appellate counsel were denied.
- State did not plead laches in answer, but court may sua sponte consider laches as a barrier to relief.
- 2002: Smith convicted of assault on a public servant; appellate counsel appointed but no timely appeal filed.
- 2013: Smith filed Article 11.07 habeas petition; habeas court found ineffective assistance and recommended an out-of-time appeal.
- Texas Court remanded to determine sua sponte laches applicability and required findings, with eventual remand for a supplemental record and 90/120 day timelines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May a court sua sponte raise laches in habeas corpus relief? | Smith argues laches cannot be raised sua sponte. | State argues sua sponte inquiry is permissible to protect finality and efficiency. | Yes, court may consider sua sponte laches. |
| Does the current record support a sua sponte laches inquiry? | Record shows extraordinary delay without clear excuse. | Delay may be excused by justifiable reasons or compelling factors. | Record supports considering laches sua sponte. |
| Should laches bar relief in habeas when delay is extensive? | Smith contends laches should not bar relief absent prejudice. | State contends delay may justify denial to protect finality and resources. | Inquiry warranted; relief may be denied if delay prejudices equity. |
| Must State plead laches? | State not required to plead laches; habeas is criminal, rule changes apply. | Procedural flexibility permits sua sponte laches consideration. | State need not plead laches; court may determine laches sua sponte. |
| Is laches analysis applicable given habeas is civil in nature? | Habeas is criminal procedure; civil pleading rules don’t apply. | Equitable analysis governs due to habeas’ extraordinary, equitable history. | Habeas laches analysis remains equitable and appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Young, 479 S.W.2d 46 (Tex.Crim.App.1972) (delimits balancing equity in habeas)
- Ex parte Carrio, 992 S.W.2d 486 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (adopts broadened laches analysis in equity context)
- Ex parte Perez, 398 S.W.3d 206 (Tex.Crim.App.2013) (restores common-law equitable laches; broader prejudice standard)
- Ex parte Mines, 26 S.W.3d 910 (Tex.Crim.App.2000) (habeas as criminal proceeding; procedural considerations)