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Filed: June 10, 2015 Do not publish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