t),C: . Tb CJ-11J ;- IA.J_ WA-l.R~ t.a!~-l!!:L1 7EX/i6 t_e..dfl-~ . J.j_J.JIJI:!IL PeU4LT!i_t2F p~~~TH'RT ~ ~ baC!UmJ?MB~IJ!!£.7~ g.li/j ~CI .7[2 -ri-1-& ~" -- _fJf fY1~~~CGe ~
~~vwl ~ • - -. \ - . ·::- ~ 3iB:m_@)l»IIAfJ_{jgoz_h>_
(7J \ : .
• ~tr.{[c£Dl;. ~ ~LtfCfE. . . -,
·~:L-J JMJJJJIJJA~_c_I.J._ m_eElj5iJ cs-.r:tr~~_04,to\) r .
f}d i.A10.e .:LJJ '7116 H~7e:TD /i__?fllc/J!:t)_lt ct:Ii0,_eGl!!llR_1_ -J1-ff2·r_l1_. JR.tt£ ~,J!) ~7 {!J)Pf!_BE_ ·7214;f_/JM~ _ ~ ~~ e_;: ~,.t/l]ll/JJUSr_~-~ f/l;;.r~ 7D P.a:oi!_e;)J~_C 'ld ~:.J bA-l-lr6 (, ·~&z cT t!.&-"R-{~ D~ -~-~,:_/GXIIS R' Ro.~4~J_b1~~7l>LI ~-Z'ldJD -~.51 1 ~_-el&cnJ_~_..i~/lle_:/21)_ :71£ tl&"-rdJ - . . --- 1- -· -- -·--A -- -;--- -
r:XQJS.
-· ~-~(l,j;;_-- ~-EO.L!J.flMl_C_u,/n 15) ·----
(fe([J~ PiUJJs
-
-r-- . -
-· -----·
(_~ . ·'~· ilffl ·-:v{~~ .. ·· .. CHRIS DANIEL I HARRIS COUNTY DISTRICT CLERK
January 16, 2015
SAM EDWARD CUMBO #530401 ESTELLE UNIT 264 FM 3478 HUNTSVILLE, TEXAS 77320
To Whom It May Concern:
Pursuant to Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, please find enclosed copies of the documents indicated below concerning the Post Conviction Writ filed in cause number 540240-A in the 177th District Court.
[gl State's Original Answer Filed January 15,2015
D Affidavit
D Court Order Dated
D Respondent's Proposed Order Designating Issues and Order For Filing Affidavit.
D Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact and Order
D Other
ernandez, Deput Criminal Post Trial
lah
Enclosure(s)- STATE'S ORIGINAL ANSWER
... ... 1201 FRANKLIN • P.O. Box 4651 • HOUSTON, TEXAS 77210-4651 • (888) 545-5577
PAGE I OF I REV: 01-02-04 ·-~· . ' .. l .
-~· ', " JiN ':'i ].;j- T! TI:;v n_· )·. lU ~ iLJ;-1 '; ' ·: ~· C;hris Daniel · ' District Clerk
JAN 15 2015 CAUSE NO. 0540240-A lflme: . .. . U{ ,_, '"'O &
EX PARTE §
§ OF
SAM EDWARD CUMBO, § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS Applicant
STATE'S ORIGINAL ANSWER
The State of Texas, through its Assistant District Attorney for Harris County,
files this, its original answer in the above-captioned cause, having been served with
an application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to TEX. CRIM. PRoc. CODE art. 11.07
§ 3 (West 2013), and would show the following:
I.
The applicant is confined pursuant to the judgment and sentence of the
177th District Court of Harris County, Texas, in cause number 0540240 (the
primary case). In the applicant's first trial, a jury found the applicant guilty of
capital murder, and the trial court imposed the death penalty. The Court of
Criminal Appeals reversed the judgment and remanded the case for a new trial.
In the applicant's second trial, the jury found the applicant guilty of capital
murder, but answered the first and second special punishment issues in the
... ... ... "~c
I
negative. The applicant's punishment in the primary case.was... then.ass.essed at
life imprisonment.
The First Court of Appeals issued an opinion on January 31, 1991, affirming
the conviction. Cumbo v. State, No. 01-89-1176-CR (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.]
January 31, 1991} (not designated for publication).
\
The State denies the factual allegations made· in the instant application, ,i' ... ~-.· ···-·- ··-· ~ ·- ...
( \ (:~~~~:~~o~~.s~~p~ott~JLll.ygff)£i~l.~~_rt.~:~~~ and offers the follo~i ng additiona I '-·-reply; _____ .
While the Court of Criminal Appeals has never imposed any requirement
that claims for habeas relief be asserted within a specified period of time, Ex
parte Carrio, 992 S.W.2d 486, 487 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999}, the Court has also
recognized that the doctrine of laches can bar habeas relief in the circumstance
that the State is harmed as a result of an unreasonable delay in pursuing a habeas
claim. /d. at 488; see also Ex Parte Perez, 398 S.W.3d 206, 215 (Tex. Crim. App.
2013} (reaffirming Carrio's holding that Texas courts may apply the common-law·
doctrine of laches in determining whether to grant habeas relief).
The State and the society have a legitimate interest in the finality of a long-
standing conviction. Ex parte Perez, 398 S.W.3d at 218. The equitable doctrine of '· laches is app,lied as a bar to habeas corpus relief when an applica11t's u_nreasonable
delay has prejudiced the State. /d. at 219. For a laches argument to prevail, the
State must show by a preponderance of the evidence that there has been an
unreasonable delay by the applicant and prejudice resulted from the deJay. /d. at
210 n. 3.
r----~ determine if the delay is unreasonable, reviewing courts may consider, I l among other things, the length of the delay in filing the application, the reasons for
the delay, and the degree and type of prejudice resulting from the delay. See Ex I
I parte Perez, 398 S.W.3d at 217 (holding that similar to speedy-trial claims, no single I i
factor is necessary or sufficient). In considering whether prejudice has been shown,
the reviewing court is permitted to consider anything that places the State in a less .;
it'/ favorable position, including prejudice to the State's ability to@the applicant.
/d. at 215. Therefore, the reviewing court may draw reasonable· inferences from the
circumstantial evidence to .determine whether excessive delay has likely .I compromised the reliability of a~ /d. at 217 (reasoning that, similar to speedy-
trial claims, "excessive delay presumptively compromises the reliabilj_tv. pf a trial in '. -·· .............. ~ --~-- ____,.._ ....... .. .-... --~- .... ---~~- . . .:____ =--
United State, 505 ..-----------------------·- ·u.s. 647, ---- 655 -- .... ~·-· (1992)). . Thus, the State's "pleadings invoking ~~----j-~-·--
laches in the habeas context need only give notice to the opposing side and need ir~-- - - - - - -
... ... not [raise] a prima facie showing of particularized prejudice[.]" Ex parte Perez, 398
S.W.3d at 217 n. 3.
The extent of the prejudice that the State must prove bears an inverse
relationship to the length of the applicant's delay. Ex parte Perez, 398 S.W.3d at
217. The longer an applicant delays filing an applicatipn, the less evidence the State
must show to demonstrate prejudice. /d.· at 217-18 (!easo~_jha:Ltb.e_JQog.e.r-a--..____, . ' ) /'
~_ha~...?..~=-~--9·~-~-~.x_~~-~--!~-~- Jl1Qie... IJke ly.. it-is-that--the ··reI iab ility..oLC!.~b.9_~~e n ___ _ compromised). Although the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals declined to adopt a '-------·e-•~f'
rebuttable presumption of prejudice to the State after a specified period of time, it
"recognize[d] that delays of more than five years may generally be considered
unreasonable in the absence of any justification for the delay." /d. at 216 n. 12. If
prejudice to the State is shown, the reviewing court must then weigh that prejudice
against any equitable consideration that[Qiilitat:l in favor of granting habeas relief.
Allowing the reviewing court to reject. the State's reliance on laches when the
record shows that (1) an applicant's delay was not unreasonable because it was due ~.--*'~- -- h -- • ~-· ' _. " •
---- to a justifiable excuse or excusable neglect; (2) the State would not be materially _ ..................._.. ... ~-........ --."··-··-·· ·-· -~--------·-,.---:. ____·...... -------··----·--·-·--------- ---------~--~--------~----·-
prejudiced as a result of the delay; or (3) the applicant is entitl~g__g>__~guitable relief -'"' ----~--·--·---·-------·,..·····-~·~""·___..-------------:.. (-·------------"--- ------------------~- .
. , 4 ...
S-1/ f,.~ •. 1.'~-· • • ·I ~- ' . :;;
innocent of the offense, or in some case, that he is rt:asqldflJ~l~){_tO gr:evail Q_IJ_~____.:;
the merits. /d. ~ --- <--·--
Here, the applicant was found guilty, for the second time, to the offense in
the primary case on November 13, 1989. See State's Writ Exhibit A, Judgment On
Jury Verdict of Guilty, No.540240. The trial court entered its judgment on the
same date. See /d. The trial received the mandate on October 15, 1991. The
applicant's instant habeas application, filed December 10, 2014, seeks_re.lLethased_
on a__ f2~~~~=~hi_s_h -~~ . tC?o ~-PJSJ_c_e...o.eady__t bJr:.t_y_,~(3.Q)_ye a r~---- ago,.... and ...__ _... ~~~.r:.J..\\'_e.o.ty_:tb.r:ge _ ,.t?.~l_y_e,~E_?_ .9f!~~"!-~~~.f.~.~ ~J- ~~~~.~:~ion ... ~--~·,..-~.,, in the prim~~~ (~~·:·~~·i·~~~-~-~h;tth;--J .. ,._ ~ ....... __ ~..... ___ 4_,.,.._.,.--·-- ' 4 - -...... - .......~~ ....--~ .............,._.-.......... ,......,.-.... ,,_.-
-·---- -<~!""-""""'"~''"';,-;>-o"... ~ .... ~,-- -·-•·--~-~'""'"~'"~'-"~-··~'--=--- ...-.._,~_, ..,
,sfate would be able to locat.e_aJLoJ_ii~ateJ:i.a.Lw.itr.~esss.&,-i·A-the-e-v.e-n.LoL _r:.e.tdiif;} · ~: ~-------------~-~~·--·--·-~·-r;;:..···. . ·----~,.. . . ~.-- . . . ~~---_,....,. . .~---b:.:::;:::;::.:.:::::.::-.:~:=::::::.::::;~~=:~-.--:·:::~:.::~"'r~"-·-------,.,,_~,""·'·~..,..,_.,...,,,.""'". . .,. . . . . "' . =-·~·.... --·"'· -.:.................."""~·,...
and thus its ability to@the primary case is greatly diminished. Moreover, it
would not be reasonable to assume that the --------·----- same -------~..::..::..:.:::_=~-=.:...:..::..::..::.=_ ""·----·--·--·---·-- evidence would be available
after twenty-three (23) years. T~~.E.ellSEDLba.s_o.o.La.cco..unted any reasons fo~
S.W.3d at 216 n.12. The applicant does not show thCJt the State is not materially
prejudiced due to his delay, nor show that he is entitled to equitable relief for other
compelling reasons. /d.
Due to the applicant's unreasonable delay of over twenty-three (23) years
in pursuing his instant habeas claims, the State has been _ prejudiced . . - in o4its""'"· ability to ~~.,...__,.,..,..,..n•~~~,.. .
. ... 5 ...
&;-A , ·~··-:._n ::;: ···'J ~-7.
~:· '
respond to the applicant's habeas claims, and therefore the applicant's instant .,,.._. __,.._,...,.....,....... ~~~?-·-...,~.J0"•-"'1""--·:-.,..,..-:"'">-..''..,_•o-o"'"··•':'!!t:l'<>i!'•~""-"-h':"""'~.of','-'<'t•!!.~:'lo':<'•t:l.'"f'~• ...,~:::;~~~"<"..-";W::;:•·:
habeas claims should be denied ,..... ..,_..,.,..,...... based on....,.......the doctrine of laches. ~_ ~~,.,..,.~..,·"~1.-:,.~,t.-~"""'··~·-~ .;:~1->!.,.~.' ~~- . .;c;.w, ••·,;-:-:~·-·~\''\'· ~:0::!- "'";'!·~':;"~-!': t··t.'••:.:;;..~_,..t;:o~Jr~O:'!tr Carrio, 992
S.W.2d at 487.
In the alternative,
· REPLY TO THE APPLICANT'S FIRST ANDTHIRD GROUNDS FOR RELIEF
The applicant appears to allege trial court error and insufficient evidence.
See Writ Application at 6, 8.
959 S.W.2d 189, 198-200 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Ex parte Goodman, 816 S.W.2d
383, 385 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Ex parte Groves, 571 S.W.2d 888, 890 (Tex. Crim. . . t::.· App. 1978); Ex parte Acosta, 672 S.W.2d 470 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984).l The purpose of ~-........e-.-...~~·'"'~·~~~
the substitute f9Lc:JD ...~PP.e~i_ffi' Ex parte Clore, 690 S.W.2d 899, 900 (Tex. Crim. App. ,,,,_. .•... -.~ '··";.',l~:<,,;,.·l.•~•l•·.;,, ,,;-,·:·_,. ,t' :t, . ' I ·W ~'""o.~;-.;.1. •
1985); Ex parte McGowan, 645 S.W.2d 286, 288 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983).
Generally, factual and evidentiary challenges are "record claims" and should
be litigated on direct appeal. Gardner, 959 S.W. 2d at 198-200. The applicant's ~---==------:; allegations are considere~ "record clai~.-~~~~~-h~uld~-!?..~~._prought u~ ...... --- -
appeal. See !d. A claim that could have been asserted on direct appeal is not ~·-v
... 6 ... cognizable in habeas corpus. Ex parte Cruzata,220 S.W.3d 518, 520 (Tex. Crim. App.
2007). When an applicant fails to raise an issue on direct appeal where there was
an adequate remedy at law, he forfeits his' right to have the merits of the claim
reviewed on an application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte Townsend, 137
S.W.3d 79, 81 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). Thus, this ground should be denied.
Therefore, the applicant's ·instant ground for relief is without merit and
should be denied.
REPLY TO THE APPLICANT'S SECOND GROUND FOR RELIEF
The applicant claims that the indictment is invalid. See Writ Application at 7.
of "8/23/89" is an "imP-ossible date" as the "89" could mean 1989 or 2089. See /d. ~W {'\" ....:± !r.o~;...W,.J:'I"' .- ... b t . W . - •.... -~~~.~~i
. ..---------~-----. ~, ~~However,Q_f~~ ~jmin~~does not object to a defect, error, or
~~iE.it"Y~~or substance in an indictment before the date on which the trial on the merits commences, he waives and forfeits the right to object to the
' defect, error, or irregularity and he may not raise the objection on appeal or in
any other post-conviction proceeding. See TEX. CRIM. PRo~AN~ .. art. 1.14{Q) . - -···· --··-··------
(West 2013); see also Ex parte Patterson, 969 S.W.2d 16, 19 (Tex. Crim. App.
1998); Studer v. State, 799 S.W.2d 263, 273 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). The applicant
'· 7 '· fails to show that he objected to the. indictment pretrial. . Therefore,.· he i~
· procedurally defaulted from litigating that issue in the instant writ proceeding.
This instant ground has no merit and must be denied.
--~---- ----··· ~--~------~-~ :· ----- . .-···::. ,:.:::..;=-1 ~-~-~~~-=-~~·~-::---·~-----~·~. ----··· ·-- '>'···~--- ....... - .... ~ -- - .... , .•. ------ __..... - ~ ~ . ~ /---The applicant raises questions of law and fact, which can be resolved by the ' / / J /r /
/ Court of Criminal Appeals upon review of official court records and without need··.· ( \ \ \ for an evidentiary hearing.
'· 8 '· '· EX PARTE
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE UNDER TEX. R. APP. 73.1(f)
The State of Texas, through its Assistant D.istrict Attorney for Harris County,
files this, its Certificate of Compliance in the above-captioned cause, haVing been \.. served with an application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Tex. Crim. Proc. ·
Code art. 11.07 § 3. The State certifies that the number of words in the State's
Original Answer is 1671.
clc;, ) Signed this 15th day of January, 2015 . ...____ I t
Respectfully Submitted,
Sharon Y. Chu Assistant District Attorney Harris County, Texas 1201 Franklin, Suite 600 Houston, Texas 77002 (713} 755-6657 Texas Bar# 24051950
... ... \. ~~~~~~~-.-~~~--?L__.Depu~ .. r' ..~:.:.\.:.~ ~>_./
........~:.:.-{; •..'·; .,.,,,.,., -......., IV.
Service has been accomplished by sending a copy of this instrument to the
. . _following address:
Mr. Sam Edward Cumbo TDCJ # 530401 Estelle Unit 264 FM 3478 Huntsville, Texas 77320
SIGNED this 15th day of January, 2015.
s~~-. ~p~I?''\ Y' \'.,} f!''i.l;.l'i.V 11 \i, .., d> If' ll.. ~"'W"'-'"
Sharon Y. Chu Assistant District Attorney Harris County District Attorney's Office 1201 Franklin Street . Houston, Texas 77002 (713) 755-6657 Texas Bar I.D. #24051950
... 9 ... ... -· -·-1
~k.{i {
of Not Guilty Before •Jurv 'i'" Co•.rt AsSessing Punishment ~~);;
THE STATE Cf. DrsTRrcr vs. -..,/{:z. ·/77 COURT Of HARRIS COUNTY,. TEXAS
.:wci£NT ~ juRY vE~ncr or curL TY PUNISHMENT fiXED BY COURT OR JURY - NO PROBATION GRANTED
Date Offense 0, • / 4 • i // jc? C' De ree : ;t/;1;4-, Committed: ,,.)'(. JZ:Z:I-JLV-V:J ;"'2 1 • ; ·:__ )
harging Instrument:· · Indictment /lrtfel'm&M<>n. Plea Jury Verdict
On this day, set forth above, this cause was called far trial, and the State appeared by the above named attorney, and the Defendant appeared in person in open court, the above named counsel for Defendant also being present, or, where a defendant is not represented by counsel, that the Defendant knowingly, intelligently, and v.alun.tarll~v.ed_t.he __ r,i.gh_Uo~.representation by counsel; and the said· Defendant having been duly arraigned and it appearing to the Court that Defendant was mentally conpetent, and having pleaded as shown above to the indictment herein, both parties announced ready for trial and thereupon .a jury, to-wit, the above named foreman and eleven others was duly selected, impaneled and sworn, who having heard the 'indictment read and the Defendant's plea thereto, and having heard the evidence submitted, and having been duly charged by the Court, retired in charge of the proper office to consider the verdict, and afterward were brough into Court by the proper officer, the Defendant and .defendant's counsel being present, and returned into open court the verdict set forth above, which was received by the Court and is here now entered upon the minutes of the Court as shown above. ·
The Defendant, in person, in writing, and in open -court, with the written agreement of the court, waived his right to the preparation of a pre-sentence report by the Probation Office, such waiver having been filed in the papers _of the cause. · [ ] The Defendant not having waived the preparation 'or a pre-sentence report by the Probation Officer, the Court directed the Probation Officer to prepare such a report.
Thereupon, the Defendant elected to have punishment assessed by the above shown assessor of punishment, -'d when shown above that the inclict~~~t~nt contxhance111ent paragraph( a), which were not waived, and alleges Defendant to have been convicted previously of any felony or offenses .for the purpose of enhancement of punishment, then the Court ask eo e fend ant if such allegations were true or ~alae and Defendant answered as shown above. , And when Defendant is shown above to have elected to have the jury aaaesa punishment, such jury was called. back into the box and heard evidence relative to the question of puniah•ent and having been duly charged by the Court1 they retired to consider such question, ll"ld after having dellberated, they returned into Court the verdict shown under punillhllent above; and when De fend ant is ahown above to have elected to have puniah~~~ent rtxed by the Court, in -due form of law further evidence was heard by the Court relative to the question of punishment and the Court fixed punishment of the Defendant as ahown above. · c..:. IT IS, THEREfORE, CONSIDERED AND ORDERED by the Court, in the presence of the Defendant, that the said judgment be, and the same is hereby in ·all things approved and confirmed, and that the Defendant is adjudged guilty of the offense set forth above as found by the verdict of the jury, as set forth above, and said Defendant be punished in accordance with the Jury Verdict or the Court's Finding, as shown above ano that the Defendant is sentenced to a term of imprison!IW!nt or fine or both, as set forth above, and that said De fend ant be delivered by the Sheriff to the Director of the Department of Corrections of the State of rexas, or other person legally authorized to receive such convicts for the punisnment assessed herein, and the aaid Defendant shall be confined for the above named term in accordance with the provisions of law governing such punishments and execution may issue as necessary. r ., And the said Defendant is remanded to jail until said Sherifr can obey the directions of this judgment.
STATE'S WV11 ... ~------~~--------- EXHIBIT A BILL or C: 0 S T S
O..ERK 'S f1IS RECAPITULATl~ C:lerk'a Fee •••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••• -, Z5 DO F"ine •••-•••••••••••••••••••••••• Misc. Coat ••••••••••••••••••••• Trial Fee ..................... . SHERIF"F"'S FEES District Atty's Fees ......... .. Serving - - - - C a p i a s b Mileage •••••• Clerk's Fees ................. .. Sunmoning Witness and Mileage ••• Sheriff's F"ees ................ . Jury ree ................................. . Jury Fee ..................... . Taking Bonds •••••••••••••••• Crim. Justice Planning F"und ... . :zo 00 Commitment .......................... ; .... . 2 00 L.E.o.s.e:.r .................. .. l !90 Release ............................... ·.. .. 2 DO c:.v.c.F ....................... . ZD DO Attachment .............................. . Attorney Fees •••••••••••••••••• TOTAL ................... . J.C.P.T.r •••••••••••••••••••••• l DO TEXAS DEPARHENT l;f' CORRECTlONS---- Witnesses •••••••••••••••••••••• TlHE ASSESSED~~/
~~;~~~~~~;tf:-b-e-gi-n-·1-/)/ I I J ff:5' Addition~l Credit AYff Days TOTAL ••••••••••••••• • •• •• ••. • •
Probation expires ~JV_j/;~~-~------- DATE SIGNED
Judge4. Z2
I! ' L-/?r-. ;~)s./8'9 .-:.n To which action of the Court the Defendant then and there, in oper~ C•::>t'rt excepted and gave notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals in the ;:k,t<: c.·i Texus, Houcton, Te>:ss. Fnd inasmuch as r,aid Defendant llc.~ given ncr;ic:
c,
- j
... ... -~ .. .. '
CHRIS DANIEL HARRIS COUNTY DISTRICT CLERK
March 27, 2015
SAM EDWARD CUMBO #530401 ESTELLE UNIT 264 FM 3478 HUNTSVILLE, TX 77320
Pursuant to Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, please find enclosed copies ofthe documents indicated below concerning the Post Conviction Writ filed in cause number 540240-A in the 177th District Court.
D State's Original Answer Filed
D Respondent's Proposed Order Designating Issues and Order For Filing Affidavit.
[gj Respondent's Proposed Findings ofFact and Order March 25,2015
Erin Bryan, Dep )) Criminal Post Trial
eb
Enclosure(s)-
... ... 1201 FRANKLIN • P.O. BOX 4651 • HOUSTON, TEXAS 77210-4651 • (888) 545-5577
PAGE I OF I REV: 01-02-04 Jl -~-
. ,
§
STATE'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
Having reviewed the application for writ of habeas corpus, the State's original
answer, and the official court records of the challenged conviction, the Court finds
that there are no controverted, previously unresolved facts material to the legality
of the applicant's confinement which require an evidentiary hearing. The Court
adopts as Findings of Fact the history of the case as set forth in the State's Original
Answer and further recommends that relief be denied based. on the following
findings of fact and conclusions of law:·
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The applicant is confined pursuant to the judgment and sentence of
the 177th District Court of Harris County, Texas, in cause number 0540240 (the
primary case).
2. In the applicant's first trial, a jury found the applicant guilty of capital
murder, and the trial court imposed the death penalty. The Court of Criminal
'· '· ~ ,. . ·!····' ,.· ,.
\Y .\. ·'
applicant's second trial, the jury found the applicant guilty of capital murder, but
answered the first and second special punishment issues in the negative. The
applicant's punishment in the primary case was then assessed at life
imprisonment.
3. The First Court of Appeals issued an opinion on January 31, 1991,
affirming the conviction. Cumbo v. State, No. 01-89-1176-CR (Tex. App.-Houston
[1st Dist.] January 31, 1991) (not designated for publication).
4. At least twenty-three (23) years have passed since the mandate in the
applicant's case issued.
5. In the event of a retrial, it is unlikely that the State would be able to
locate all of the material witnesses in the primary case, and it is not unreasonable
to assume that not all of the evidence would be available due to time passage.
6. The applicant did not gi~e any reasons to account for the delay in filing
the instant application.
7. The applicant has not accounted any reasons for the extended delay,
nor does he provide a justifiable excuse.
... .. . ...
2 ' ·,{ ~ '
years in pursuing his instant habeas claims, the State has been prejudiced in its
ability to respond to the applicant's habeas claims.
9. The applicant's claims of trial court error and insufficient evidence are
record claim and are not cognizable on habeas.
10. The applicant did not object to any defect, error, or irregularity of form
or substance in the indictment before the date on which the trial on the merits
commenced.
11. In all things, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that his conviction
was improperly obtained or that he is being improperly confined.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
12. It is well settled that a habeas proceeding should not be used to
litigate issues that should have been raised on direct appeal. See Ex parte Gardner,
959 S.W.2d 189, 198-200 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Ex parte Goodman, 816 S.W.2d
383, 385 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Ex parte Groves, 571 S.W.2d 888, 890 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1978); Ex parte Acosta, 672 S.W.2d 470 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984).
13. The purpose of habeas corpus is to determine the lawfulness of
confinement and not to serve as the substitute for an appeal. Ex parte Clore, 690
S.W.2d 899, 900 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985); Ex parte McGowan, 645 S.W.2d 286, 288 .... ...,
3 I (, l .
.-. --.---(-+E*-GF~ffi;-AF' 13-;-1-98-31-.-+A€-a·F>F>I+eank-a-l+ega-He-A-ef-iA-S-H-f-f.iefe.A€y-e-v-i den ce, tFi;-a-a t - 1- - - -
court error, and prosecutorial misconduct are considered {/record claims" and
should have brought it up on appeal. See id.
14. Challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence are not cognizable on
habeas. Ex parte Easter, 615 S.W.2d 719, 721 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981); Ex parte
Williams, 703 S.W.2d 674, 677 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986); Ex parte McLain, 869 S.W.2d
349, 350 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988); Ex parte Ash, 514 S.W.2d 762, 763 (Tex. Crim. App.
1974).
15. If a criminal defendant does not object to a defect, error, or
irregularity of form or substance in an indictment before the date on which the trial
on the merits commences, he waives and forfeits the right to object to the defect,
error, or irregularity and he may not raise the objection on appeal or in any other
post-conviction proceeding. See TEX. CRIM. PRoc. CODE ANN. art. 1.14(b) (West 2013);
see also Ex parte Patterson, 969 S.W.2d 16, 19 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Studer v.
State, 799 S.W.2d 263, 273 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990).
16. In all things, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that his conviction
was improperly obtained or that he is being improperly confined.
Accordingly, it is recommended to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals that
relief be denied . ... ...
4 ORDER
THE CLERK IS ORDERED to prepare a transcript of all papers in cause number
0540240-A and transmit same to the Court of Criminal Appeals as provided by
TEX. CODE (RIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 § 3 (West 2013). The transcript shall include
certified copies of the following documents:
A. the application for writ of habeas corpus with all attachments;
B. the State's answer;
C. the trial court's order, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law;
D. the State's and the Applicant's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (if any); and
E. the indictment, docket sheets, and judgment and sentence in cause number 0540240.
THE CLERK is further ORDERED to send a copy of this order to the applicant,
Mr. Sam Cumbo, TDCJ # 530401, Estelle Unit, 264 FM 3478, Hunstsville, Texas
77320; and a copy to the counsel for the State, Sharon Y. Chu, Assistant District
Attorney, 1201 Franklin, Suite 600, Houston, Texas 77002.
By the following signature, the Court adopts the State's Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and r er in cause number 0540240-A. ' Signed on this Z ~day o ,. 20_.zr._.
PRESIDING
'· '· '·
5 EX PARTE §
SAM EDWARD CUMBO, § . HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS 0
Applicant
The State of Texas, through its Assistant District Attorney for Harris County,
files this, its Certificate of Compliance in the above-captioned cause, having been
' served with an application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Tex. Crim. Proc.
Code art. 11.07 § 3. The State certifies that the number of words in the State's
Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order is 684.
Sharon Y. Chu Assistant District Attorney Harris County, Texas 1201 Franklin, Suite 600 Houston, Texas· 77002 (713} 755-6657 Texas Bar# 24051950
'· '·