Zavala, John, WR-63,888-06

Background

Applicant John (Joe) Zavala seeks mandamus and a writ of habeas corpus challenging his 2005 guilty pleas and 45‑year concurrent sentences for arson and burglary, arguing the charging instrument(s) were void and the trial court lacked subject‑matter jurisdiction.
Zavala contends the indictments are forged/defective (no valid grand‑jury true bill), service was not made on the proper custodial respondent (Eddie D. Baker), and unauthorized third‑party briefs were accepted by the habeas court.
He alleges constructive breach of fiduciary duty / ineffective assistance by appointed trial and appellate counsel (Ray Hall Jr. and Ronald G. Couch) who failed to challenge the indictment and preserve jurisdictional/error claims.
The State moved to dismiss the application as a subsequent writ under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.07 §4, arguing Zavala’s claims are based on the trial record and thus were available earlier; the State opposed expansion of the record and an in‑person hearing.
The trial court recommended dismissal as a subsequent application pursuant to art. 11.07 §4 and found no need to expand the record or return Zavala to Tarrant County for hearing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Zavala)	Defendant's Argument (State / Respondents)	Held
Whether the indictment(s) are void for lack of a valid grand‑jury true bill and thus deprived the trial court of subject‑matter jurisdiction	Indictment(s) were forged/defective; no constitutional grand‑jury return; judgment void ab initio	Claims rest on the trial record and were available earlier; jurisdictional defect not shown to be newly discovered	Trial court recommended dismissal of the application as a subsequent writ; no relief granted on this ground at habeas stage (application dismissed)
Whether habeas process was defective because proper service was not made on the custodial respondent (Eddie D. Baker)	Habeas judge failed to serve the custodian and relied on unauthorized third‑party filings; relief requires service and return of the writ to the proper custodian	State contends service and procedural posture are adequate and issues are subject to art. 11.07 bar	Trial court declined to expand the record or order Zavala produced; dismissed as subsequent application
Whether the application is barred as a "subsequent" writ under art. 11.07 §4	Zavala says claims arose only after receiving transcripts and were not previously available; preserves right to raise jurisdictional defects at any time	State argues factual and legal bases were available earlier and Zavala failed to show actual innocence or newly unavailable legal basis; burden on applicant to overcome subsequent‑writ bar	Trial court recommended dismissal under art. 11.07 §4 (subsequent‑application bar)
Whether appointed counsel rendered ineffective assistance / constructive breach of fiduciary duty that voids the plea	Counsel abandoned duty, failed to move to quash defective indictment or preserve jurisdictional and Brady claims, rendering plea involuntary	State treats the record as sufficient and sees no entitlement to relief; ineffective‑assistance claims not shown by preponderance on this record	Trial court found no need for expanded record; ineffective‑assistance claim was not sustained in habeas disposition (application dismissed as subsequent)

Key Cases Cited

Ex parte Seidel, 39 S.W.3d 221 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (jurisdictional defects can render judgments void)
Hoang v. State, 872 S.W.2d 694 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (charging instrument defects and jurisdiction)
Ex parte Rains, 555 S.W.2d 478 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977) (burden on habeas applicant)
Ex parte Williams, 65 S.W.3d 656 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (standards for relief on habeas corpus)
Ex parte McPherson, 32 S.W.3d 860 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (conclusory allegations insufficient on habeas)
Moff v. State, 154 S.W.3d 599 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (jurisdictional and procedural limits)
Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (U.S. 2008) (due‑process principles governing habeas review)
Dist. Attorney's Office v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52 (U.S. 2009) (limitations on postconviction discovery and habeas claims)