Goen, James Eugene ( 2006 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

---

NO. 38,823-14

---

EX PARTE JAMES EUGENE GOEN, Applicant

---

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

FROM CAUSE NO. 25,314-A

IN THE 188TH DISTRICT COURT OF GREGG COUNTY

---

Per curiam.

O R D E R  

This is an application for a writ of habeas corpus which was transmitted to this Court pursuant to the provisions of Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.07. Applicant was convicted of the offense of forgery, and punishment was assessed at eighteen years' confinement. Applicant did not pursue an appeal.

In the present application, Applicant challenges the admissibility of the documents presented by the State to prove the enhancement paragraph of the indictment. Specifically, Applicant contends that: (1) during the punishment phase of trial, the copies of the judgment and sentence contained in the pen packet did not reflect that the originals forwarded to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Correction Institutions Divisions bore original attestation of the convicting court; (2) the authenticated copy of the judgment and sentence were not "certified copies"; (3) Exhibit #8 was not properly identified on its face as a correct copy of the original judgment revoking probation on file with the clerk's office; and (4) the attestation of a district clerk is not sufficient to render documents admissible.

This application, however, presents a more serious question. This Court's records reflect that the Applicant has filed eight previous writs challenging this conviction.

It is obvious from the record that the Applicant is continuing to raise issues which have been presented and rejected, or should have been presented, in his previous application. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.07, § 4(a)(1). The writ of habeas corpus is too serious and important a matter to be lightly and easily abused. See Ex parte Carr, 511 S.W.2d 523 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977); Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1 (1963). See also, Smith v. Estelle, 562 F.2d 1006 (5^th Cir. 1977); McDonald v. Estelle, 590 F.2d 153 (5^th Cir. 1979); Potts v. Zant, 638 F.2d 727 (5^th Cir. 1981); Hansen v. Estelle, 641 F.2d 250 (5^th Cir 1981)(delayed applications).

We hold that the Applicant's contention is not only without merit, but has been waived and abandoned by his abuse of the writ of habeas corpus.

Therefore, the Honorable Louise Pearson, Clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals, is instructed not to accept or file the instant application for a writ of habeas corpus. She is also instructed not to accept in the future any applications for a writ of habeas corpus attacking this conviction, or any prior conviction used to enhance it, unless the Applicant has first shown that any contentions presented have not been raised previously and a showing is made that they could not have been presented in any earlier application for habeas corpus relief. Ex parte Dora ⁽¹⁾

, 548 S.W.2d 392 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977); Ex parte Bilton, 602 S.W.2d 534 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980).

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 20^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2006.

EN BANC

DO NOT PUBLISH   

1. In Ex parte Dora, this Court explained the duty of the trial court after the entry of an abuse order as follows:

Where a petitioner has been previously cited for an 'abuse of the Great Writ'' the trial court should not thereafter consider the merits of any application for writ of habeas corpus filed by the petitioner. The trial court should, however, review the application and make findings that this petitioner has abused the writ in the past, and thus making the review procedure of this court more efficient. The transcript should be forwarded to this Court, just as in all other cases, pursuant to our automatic review jurisdiction. See Art 11.07,§2(a), supra. The writ transcript should, of course be forwarded to this court within fifteen days of the trial court's order. See Art 11.07, §2(c)), supra.