McKnight, George Oliver

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedJune 10, 2015
DocketWR-36,732-02
StatusPublished

This text of McKnight, George Oliver (McKnight, George Oliver) 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
McKnight, George Oliver, (Tex. 2015).

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NO. WR-36,732-02

EX PARTE GEORGE OLIVER MCKNIGHT, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS CAUSE NO. 1149919-A IN THE 177TH DISTRICT COURT FROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

ORDER

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 this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of the offense of

robbery and sentenced to thirty-two years’ imprisonment. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed

his conviction. McKnight v. State, No. 14-08-00770-CR (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Dec. 17,

2009) (not designated for publication).

Applicant’s 11.07 application raises nine grounds for relief and his memorandum of law

exceeds fifty pages. The habeas court found that the memorandum’s length renders the writ application non-compliant and recommended dismissing. TEX . R. APP . P. 73.1(d). However, the

habeas record contains “Applicant’s Pro Se Motion For Suspension Of Rules,” in which he requests

leave to exceed the page limitation. TEX . R. APP . P. 73.1(d). It is not clear if the habeas court

considered Applicant’s motion and its recommendation to dismiss implicitly rejects Applicant’s

request, or whether the court was unaware of the motion. We remand this application to the 177th

District Court of Harris County to allow the trial judge to clarify the record by either making an

explicit ruling on the motion, or to find that its recommendation should be construed as a denial of

the motion.

This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved this issue, which

shall be resolved within 45 days of this order. A supplemental transcript shall be forwarded to this

Court within 60 days of the date of this order. Any extensions of time shall be obtained from this

Court.

Filed: June 10, 2015 Do not publish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)
McKnight, George Oliver, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcknight-george-oliver-texcrimapp-2015.