Ramon, Joe Albert Sr ( 2023 )

In the Court of Criminal
Appeals of Texas
══════════
Nos. WR-94,473-01 & WR-94,473-02
══════════
EX PARTE JOE ALBERT RAMON, SR.,
Applicant
═══════════════════════════════════════
On Applications for Writs of Habeas Corpus
Cause Nos. B-29,686-A & B-29,687-A in the 161st District Court
From Ector County
═══════════════════════════════════════
YEARY, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which S LAUGHTER , J.,
joined.
Applicant was convicted in 2002 of murder and attempted capital
murder and sentenced to ninety-nine years’ imprisonment for each
cause, to run concurrently. The Eighth Court of Appeals affirmed his
murder conviction in 2005. Ramon v. State, No. 08-03-0045-CR (Tex.
App.—El Paso Mar. 17, 2005) (not designated for publication). Applicant
RAMON – 2
did not appeal his conviction for attempted capital murder. In December
of 2022, Applicant filed two applications for writs of habeas corpus in
the county of conviction. TEX. C ODE CRIM. PROC . art. 11.07. In his
applications, he alleges ineffective assistance of counsel during
punishment.
Today, the Court remands these applications to the trial court to
further develop the record. I join the Court’s remand order. But I write
separately to address my thoughts concerning the doctrine of laches and
its possible application to this case. See Ex parte Smith, 444 S.W.3d 661(Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (holding a trial court has the authority to sua
sponte consider the doctrine of laches); Ex parte Bazille, ___ S.W.3d ___,
No. WR-89,851-02, 2022 WL 108348 (Tex. Crim. App. Jan. 12, 2022)
(Yeary, J., concurring).
The doctrine of laches ought to be considered in a case like this
one. Applicant’s appeal was finalized when the court of appeals issued
its mandate in September of 2006, but Applicant did not file these writ
applications until sixteen years later. 1 The record is also silent
regarding circumstances that may excuse Applicant’s delay, and at least
some explanation for the long delay in filing should be provided.
Consistent with this Court’s precedent, the trial court “may sua
sponte consider and determine whether laches should bar relief.” Smith,
444 S.W.3d at 667. If the trial court does so, it must give Applicant the
1 “Our revised approach will permit courts to more broadly consider the
diminished memories of trial participants and the diminished availability of
the State’s evidence, both of which may often be said to occur beyond five years
after a conviction becomes final.” Ex parte Perez, 398 S.W.3d 206, 216 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2013) (citing Ex parte Steptoe, 132 S.W.3d 434, 437–39 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2004) (Cochran, J., dissenting)).
RAMON – 3
opportunity to explain the reasons for the delay and give the State’s
prosecutors and/or former counsel for Applicant an opportunity to state
whether Applicant’s delay has caused any prejudice to their ability to
defend against Applicant’s claims. Id. at 670. And ultimately, the trial
court may include findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning the
doctrine of laches in its response to this Court’s remand order.
With these additional thoughts, I join the Court’s order.
FILED: February 1, 2023
DO NOT PUBLISH