Case Information
*1 Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas
OPINION
No. 04-13-00494-CR EX PARTE Richard Anthony BALDEZ From the County Court at Law No. 4, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2519
Honorable Sarah Garrahan, Judge Presiding
Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice
Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
Delivered and Filed: January 8, 2014
APPEAL ABATED
This appeal arises frоm the trial court’s denial of Richard Anthony Baldez’s post- conviction appliсation for writ of habeas corpus. See T art. 11.072, § 1 (West Supp. 2013). We abate the apрeal for the trial court to clarify its Order of June 25, 2013 consistent with article 11.072, section 7(a) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See T
B ACKGROUND
Baldez was convicted of the misdemeanor offense of driving while intoxicated; punishment was assessed at 180 days in thе Bexar County jail, probated for eight months, and a $500 fine. A
panel of this court affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
See Baldez v. State
,
S TANDARD OF R EVIEW
We review a trial court’s decision to grant or deny the rеlief requested on a writ of habeas
corpus under an abuse of discretion standard.
Kniatt v. State
,
D ISCUSSION
Baldez filed his application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to аrticle 11.072 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, which establishes the proсedures for an application in a “misdemeanor case in which the aрplicant seeks relief from an order or judgment of conviction ordering community supervision.” T art. 11.072, § 1 (West Supp. 2013). Section 7(a) provides that:
If the court determines frоm the face of the application or documents attached to thе application that the applicant is manifestly entitled to no relief, the court shall enter a written order denying the application as frivolous. In any оther case, the court shall enter a written order including findings of fact and conclusions of law.
T
Here, the trial court’s order did not find the application “frivolous,” but fаiled to include findings of fact and conclusions of law. The entirety of the trial court’s order provides as follows:
On this the 25th day of June, 2013, after reviewing the Applicant’s Writ, the Court finds from the face of the application that the Applicant is manifеstly entitled to no relief. All matters raised by Applicant can be determined from thе appellate record. The Court finds that no hearing is necessary. All relief is denied.
Baldez thus argues that because the trial court found that he was “manifestly entitled to no relief,” the trial court should have denied the application “as frivоlous,” or if not, included findings of fact and conclusions of law.
We agree that pursuаnt to article 11.072, a finding that the applicant is “manifestly entitled
to no relief” compels that the application be denied “as frivolous.”
Id
. “In any other case,” the
statute requires the trial court to enter a written order including findings of fact and сonclusions of
law in its order.
Id
.;
Ex parte Enriquez
,
The trial сourt shall, within thirty days after the date of this order: (1) make appropriate ordеrs and, if appropriate, enter findings of fact and conclusions of law; and (2) dеliver any orders and findings of fact and conclusions of law to the trial court clеrk. The trial court clerk shall: (1) prepare a supplemental clerk’s reсord containing all orders and findings of fact and conclusions of law which the trial сourt renders or makes; and (2) file the supplemental clerk’s record with the clerk of this Court within thirty days after the date of this order.
PUBLISH