IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
NOS. WR-65,784-02 and WR-65,784-04
EX PARTE JOHN ALLEN RUBIO, Applicant
ON APPLICATION FOR POST-CONVICTION WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
IN CAUSE NO. 03-CR-457-B IN THE 138 TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
CAMERON COUNTY
Per curiam.
ORDER
In August 2010, the trial court appointed David A. Schulman to represent applicant
in a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus under Article 11.071.1 Pursuant to Article
11.071, § 4(a), applicant’s application for a writ of habeas corpus was originally due in
the convicting court on or before December 27, 2011. However, because of difficulties
1
Unless otherwise indicated all references to Articles refer to the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
Rubio - 2
obtaining timely rulings on motions presented to the trial court, counsel failed to timely
file a writ application on applicant’s behalf. Instead, counsel asked this Court for more
time to file under Article 11.071, § 4A. This Court reviewed the case under Article
11.071, § 4A, found that counsel had shown good cause, allowed counsel to continue, and
reset the due date to 180 days after the date the order issued. This made the writ
application due to be filed in the trial court on or before March 25, 2013.
Because the difficulties continued, applicant filed with this Court a second motion
for an extension under Article 11.071 § 4A. This Court determined that applicant had
again showed good cause and granted him 90 days to finish the investigation and file an
application for a writ of habeas corpus.
When applicant presented this Court with a third request for additional time under
Article 11.071 § 4A, we found that counsel failed to show good cause for the request.
Consequently, we gave counsel 30 days from the date of the September 11, 2013 order to
file an application in the trial court on applicant’s behalf or risk a ruling of contempt. See
Article 11.071, § 4A. This made the application due in the trial court on or before
October 11, 2013.
On December 16, 2015, because it had been more than two years since the
application should have been filed in the trial court, we gave the trial court 90 days to
resolve any issues remaining in the case. Ex parte Rubio, No. WR-65,784-02 (Tex. Crim.
App. Dec. 16, 2015)(not designated for publication). We also ordered the clerk to
Rubio - 3
immediately thereafter transmit the complete writ record to this Court. Id. However, in
March 2016, when the record was due to be sent to this Court, the trial judge called this
Court and stated that he needed additional time to comply with our order, and he
explained that he planned to have a telephonic hearing in April 2016 to determine more
precisely how much additional time he would need. In May 2016, we received a letter
from the trial judge in which he indicated that he thought he would be able to finish a
court order in the case by September 19, 2016. But no record has yet been received.
On September 26, 2016, the parties filed a joint motion in this Court for an
extension of time in which they indicated that the issues in the case could be fully
resolved by mid-December 2016. That time has now passed and no record has been
forwarded to this Court. Accordingly, we order the trial court to finish its work in the
case and have the clerk transmit the complete record to this Court within 30 days of the
date of this order. No motions for extensions of time shall be entertained.
Furthermore, it has come to our attention that a subsequent writ has been filed in
the trial court in this case. The clerk is order to immediately forward that application to
this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH, 2017.
Do Not Publish