Poore, Shawn Paul

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedJanuary 15, 2025
DocketWR-95,797-02
StatusPublished

This text of Poore, Shawn Paul (Poore, Shawn Paul) 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
Poore, Shawn Paul, (Tex. 2025).

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NO. WR-95,797-02

EX PARTE SHAWN POORE, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS CAUSE NO. 38,888A IN THE 66TH DISTRICT COURT FROM HILL COUNTY

Per curiam. YEARY, J., concurred.

OPINION

Applicant was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon and sentenced to 35

years’ imprisonment. Applicant filed this application for a writ of habeas corpus in the county of

conviction, and the district clerk forwarded it to this Court. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07.

Applicant contends that his plea was involuntary because trial counsel failed to object to the

use of a prior conviction for enhancement when the prior conviction was also the underlying felony

in Applicant’s unlawful possession charge. See Hernandez v. State, 929 S.W.2d 11, 13 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1996) (“The State is not permitted to use the same prior conviction more than once in the same 2

prosecution.”); Mc Williams v. State, 782 S.W.2d 871, 875 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (“a prior

conviction is not available to enhance punishment for an offense of which it is an essential

element”). Based on the record, the trial court has determined that Applicant’s plea was involuntary.

On remand, the trial court attempted to grant Applicant a new trial, set aside the judgment,

and re-sentence Applicant. The trial court was without authority to do so. See Ex parte Alexander,

685 S.W.2d 57, 60 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (“It is well established that only the Court of Criminal

Appeals possesses the authority to grant relief in a post-conviction habeas corpus proceeding where

there is a final felony conviction. The trial court is without such authority.”). The judgment

purporting to change Applicant’s conviction and sentence is void and of no effect.

Relief is now granted. Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970). The judgment in cause

number 38,888 in the 66th District Court of Hill County is set aside, and Applicant is remanded to

the custody of the Sheriff of Hill County to answer the charges as set out in the indictment. The trial

court shall issue any necessary bench warrant within ten days from the date of this Court’s mandate.

Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–Correctional

Institutions Division and the Board of Pardons and Paroles.

Delivered: January 15, 2025

Do not publish

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

Related

Brady v. United States
397 U.S. 742 (Supreme Court, 1970)
Ex Parte Alexander
685 S.W.2d 57 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1985)
McWilliams v. State
782 S.W.2d 871 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1990)
Hernandez v. State
929 S.W.2d 11 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Poore, Shawn Paul, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/poore-shawn-paul-texcrimapp-2025.