Taylor, Elijah Isaiah
WR-83,101-02
| Tex. App. | Nov 9, 2015Background
- Relator Elijah Isaiah Taylor is incarcerated after a 2012 capital-murder conviction and sentenced to life without parole.
- On January 25, 2015 Taylor filed an Article 11.07 post-conviction writ of habeas corpus in Dallas County (Criminal District Court No. 4); multiple motions in that habeas proceeding have been held under advisement since that date.
- Pending motions include: motion for appointment of counsel, motion for evidentiary hearing, motion to recuse the habeas judge, motion for the court to take judicial notice, and motion for ad testificandum.
- Taylor alleges the habeas court and the Dallas County district clerk failed to comply with deadlines and ministerial duties under Art. 11.07 and this Court’s prior per curiam remand (May 13, 2015), including transmitting supplemental transcripts and findings within ordered timeframes.
- Taylor petitioned the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals for leave to file an original petition for writ of mandamus directing the habeas court to rule on the pending motions and to comply with Article 11.07 transmission requirements; he asserts an inordinate delay violates due process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the habeas court must rule promptly on Taylor’s pending motions | Taylor: court has held motions under advisement since Jan 25, 2015; three-month administrative rule and prior remand require a ruling; delay denies due process | Dallas County/Habeas Court: (not in record) likely reliance on docket pressures or ongoing internal procedures | Relator seeks mandamus compelling a ruling; relief requested (mandamus) pending before CCA |
| Whether the district clerk and habeas court violated Art. 11.07(3)(c) by failing to transmit the application, answers, and certificate to CCA | Taylor: clerk failed to transmit required papers immediately after finding no issues; statutory duty is ministerial and mandatory | District clerk: (not in record) potential argument of compliance or excusable delay | Relief sought: mandamus to compel transmission; petition alleges statutory violation; decision pending |
| Whether delay amounts to a cognizable federal due-process violation | Taylor: ten-month delay (and missed deadlines) is inordinate and denies the speedy post-conviction remedy; cites federal circuit authority that excessive delay may deny due process | State: (not in record) likely that mere delay alone is not per se constitutional violation absent prejudice | Taylor requests CCA intervention via mandamus; issue presented as basis for relief; CCA ruling not included in petition record |
| Whether mandamus is an appropriate remedy (i.e., clear right, ministerial duty, no adequate remedy at law) | Taylor: satisfies mandamus prerequisites — justiciable interest (liberty), clear right to statutory process, ministerial duty by clerk/court, no adequate remedy by appeal | State: (not in record) could argue discretion or no clear ministerial breach | Petitioner requests issuance of mandamus; determination of appropriateness left to CCA (petition before court) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Tasby, 40 S.W.3d 190 (Tex. App. — Texarkana 2001) (three-month administrative period to rule on matters taken under advisement cited as authority for timely rulings)
- Ex parte Hoang, 872 S.W.2d 694 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (Article 11.07 vests exclusive jurisdiction in the Court of Criminal Appeals for post-conviction felony proceedings)
- Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (mandamus may issue to correct a clear abuse of discretion or violation of a duty imposed by law)