Ethel, Dennis Ray

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedDecember 10, 2008
DocketWR-66,517-02
StatusPublished

This text of Ethel, Dennis Ray (Ethel, Dennis Ray) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ethel, Dennis Ray, (Tex. 2008).

Opinion



IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS



NOS. WR-66,517-01 & -02
EX PARTE DENNIS RAY ETHEL, Applicant


ON APPLICATIONS FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NOS. 15014B & 15016B IN THE 12TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM GRIMES COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R



Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court these applications for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of two counts of aggravated robbery and sentenced to two terms of ninety-two years' imprisonment. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed his convictions. Ethel v. State, Nos. 14-04-00093-CR & 14-04-00094-CR (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.], Aug. 16, 2005, no pet.).

On February 7, 2007, we remanded these applications and directed the trial court to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law on whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. On November 20, 2008, Applicant filed motions with this Court requesting an indefinite extension of time until we decide whether he has a right to supplement and amend his applications on remand.

Nothing in Article 11.07 of the Code of Criminal Procedure precludes Applicant from amending and supplementing his applications on remand. Section 4 of Article 11.07 is triggered only "after final disposition of an initial application challenging the same conviction . . . ." Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.07, § 4(a). There has not been a "final disposition" of Applicant's applications. Should Applicant decide to amend and supplement his applications on remand, the trial court does not have a ministerial duty to make findings of fact and conclusions of law on Applicant's new grounds or facts. "[I]t shall be the duty of the convicting court to decide whether there are controverted, previously unresolved facts material to the legality of the applicant's confinement." Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.07, § 3(c). Applicant's motions are denied.

Filed: December 10, 2008

Do not publish



Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ex Parte Young
418 S.W.2d 824 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Ethel, Dennis Ray, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ethel-dennis-ray-texcrimapp-2008.