Cruzata, Ex Parte Jorge

• Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
• Decided: April 18, 2007
• Docket: AP-75,513
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. AP-75,513 EX PARTE JORGE W. CRUZATA, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

FROM EL PASO COUNTY

Meyers, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

DISSENTING OPINION

I reiterate my dissenting opinion in Ex Parte Townsend, 137 S.W.3d 79 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). I'm not sure why we still have the writ of habeas corpus since we keep whittling away its uses.

In Ex Parte Drake, we stated that habeas corpus should generally not be used to re-litigate matters which were addressed on appeal, 883 S.W.2d 213, 215 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994), citing Ex Parte Schuessler, 846 S.W.2d 850 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). More recently we have said that habeas corpus may not be used to assert claims that could have been asserted on direct appeal. Townsend, 137 S.W.3d at 81. This implies that anything that could have been raised on direct appeal-whether it was actually raised or not-is now forbidden from habeas corpus relief. However, we routinely say that an application for writ of habeas corpus is a better vehicle for us to review ineffective assistance of counsel claims even though such claims could be raised on direct appeal. So what is the writ of habeas corpus for these days?

It is not just for newly discovered evidence and ineffective assistance claims. In Ex Parte Goodman, 816 S.W.2d 383, 385 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), we stated that, although habeas corpus is traditionally unavailable to review matters which were raised and rejected on appeal, claims involving jurisdictional defects or invoking fundamental constitutional rights may be raised. See also Ex Parte Shields, 550 S.W.2d 670 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976) (granting relief due to lack of jurisdiction); Ex Parte Clark, 597 S.W.2d 760 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (granting relief due to the trial court's failure to apply the law to the facts of the case); See Ex Parte Bravo, 702 S.W.2d 189 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982) (granting relief due to the improper excusal of a veniremember); Ex Parte Russell, 738 S.W.2d 644 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (granting relief due to improper admission of void prior conviction); Ex Parte Schuessler, 846 S.W.2d at 852-53 (granting relief due to lack of jurisdiction).

I disagree with the majority's statement that habeas corpus may not be used to assert claims that could have been raised on direct appeal. While the writ is an extraordinary remedy, it is simply not true that habeas relief is limited to claims involving issues that could not have been raised on direct appeal. We should not use the fact that an issue was not raised on direct appeal as a procedural bar. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.

Meyers, J.

Filed: April 18, 2007

Publish