IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
NO. WR-79,465-01
EX PARTE AL LETROY SMITH, Applicant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
FROM CAUSE NO. 43,698-01-A IN THE 47TH DISTRICT COURT
POTTER COUNTY
M EYERS, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
DISSENTING OPINION
As I have discussed before, I thought instituting laches for writs of habeas corpus was
unfair and had no legal basis. Perez v. State, 398 S.W.3d 206, 219-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013)
(Meyers, J., dissenting). Laches was instituted as an equitable doctrine meant to prevent the
supposed hardship that the State might encounter in retrying an applicant if relief were
obtained. See B LACK’S L AW D ICTIONARY 1006 (10th ed. 2014). Perez, however, turned it
into an instrument to allow the State to prevent applicants from obtaining habeas hearings,
Smith dissent - Page 2
and ultimately, relief.
The majority in the present case further handicapped applicants by allowing sua
sponte consideration of laches without requiring the State to even argue that the doctrine
should be employed. Even though the State in this case did not assert that it needed laches
to prevent a hardship in retrial, the majority referred the case back to the trial judge to make
findings on Applicant’s reason for delay. From my reading of the majority opinion, it does
not seem that the judge’s findings were based on anything other than the applicant’s
statement of his understanding of his ability to file a writ. It is not based on any analysis of
prejudice the State may encounter in retrying the case. Therefore, I cannot agree with the
conclusion that Applicant should be laches-barred.
The majority’s action today is not only unfair, it is straight out mean. It is discouraging
to see how this court is continually moving toward limiting defendants’ rights that are both
statutorily and constitutionally guaranteed.
Because I believe that laches should not have been considered in Applicant’s case and
that we should have heard his application for a writ of habeas corpus, I respectfully dissent.
Meyers, J.
Filed: June 24, 2015
Publish