Ex Parte Reynoso, No. WR-66260-01.
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas |
| Writing for the Court | Per Curiam |
| Citation | 228 S.W.3d 163 |
| Parties | Ex Parte Juan Jose REYNOSO, Applicant. |
| Docket Number | No. WR-66260-01. |
| Decision Date | 27 June 2007 |
[228 S.W.3d 164]
Steven R. Rosen, Houston, for appellant.
Lynn Hardaway, Asst. D.A., Houston, Matthew Paul, State's Attorney, Austin, for state.
PER CURIAM.
On remand from this Court, the trial court made the following detailed findings of fact: Applicant was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death on May 12, 2004. A week later, the trial court appointed Steven Rosen as writ counsel. On May 25 and July 15, applicant asked that his appeals be withdrawn and an execution date set. On August 30, the trial court convened a hearing, at which applicant again confirmed that he did not want to appeal and asked the court to set an execution date. Applicant was evaluated by doctors, who found that he was competent to choose to forego his habeas proceeding. In a letter to the Harris District Clerk's Office, dated September 1, 2004, applicant again stated that he did not want to appeal his conviction and requested that the trial court schedule his execution.
The trial court held another hearing on November 8, 2004, at which applicant again stated that he wanted to waive his right to habeas proceedings. The trial court then withdrew Rosen's appointment as habeas counsel.
Counsel on direct appeal filed a brief. Ten days later, on November 28, 2004, applicant wrote a letter to the trial court again requesting that the court set his execution date.
On March 2, 2005, applicant changed his mind, and wrote a letter to the trial court, saying that he wished to pursue his appeals. Steven Rosen requested and received from the trial court a ninety-day extension, even though his appointment had been withdrawn. Then on April 4, 2005, the trial court convened a hearing at which applicant confirmed that he wanted to pursue his Article 11.071 habeas proceeding. At that hearing, the court re-appointed Steven Rosen.
On May 1, 2005, applicant wrote to the trial court as follows, saying that he had changed his mind:
again, once and for all, and I DO NOT want Rocket [Steven] Rosen to represent me. I wish to waive my appeals. I would like an execution date immediately.
Rosen contacted attorney Sidney Crowley to assist him in preparing the habeas petition. Crowley visited applicant on May 19, 2005, whereupon applicant told him that he did not want a writ application filed on his behalf. Upon further questioning by Crowley, applicant confirmed that he did not want an 11.071 writ application to be filed.
In a June 22, 2005, letter to the trial court, applicant requested that the trial court disregard his last request to drop his appeals, asked the court to fire Rosen, and stated that he wished to continue his appeal. On July 11, 2005, Rosen filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus on applicant's behalf.
By our calculations, the application was untimely. The application was originally due on April 9, 2005, which was forty-five days after the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mullis v. Thaler, Civil Action 3:13-cv-121
...makes into competency. While Texas courts require an inmate to be competent before waiving state habeas review, see Ex parte Reynoso, 228 S.W.3d 163, 164 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007), neither party has identified a precise state standard used to assess competency. In federal cases, a court asks w......
-
Weldon v. Wal-Mart Stores Tex., L.L.C., CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15-CV-62
...Keetch, 845 S.W.2d at 264. Significantly, "a condition is not unreasonably dangerous simply because it is not foolproof." Brinson, 228 S.W.3d at 163 (citing Brookshire Grocery Co. v. Taylor, 222 S.W.3d 406, 410 (Tex. 2006)). Rather, "[a] condition poses an unreasonable risk of harm when the......
-
Duncan v. First Tex. Homes, NO. 02–12–00464–CV
...222 S.W.3d 406, 408 (Tex.2006). A condition is unreasonably dangerous if it presents an unreasonable risk of harm. Brinson Ford, 228 S.W.3d at 163. “A condition poses an unreasonable risk of harm for premises-defect purposes when there is a ‘sufficient probability of a harmful event occurri......
-
Farrar v. Sabine Mgmt. Corp., No. 01–09–00492–CV.
...its invitees' safety, it must protect invitees from conditions on the property that present an unreasonable risk of harm. Brinson Ford, 228 S.W.3d at 163 (citing CMH Homes, Inc. v. Daenen, 15 S.W.3d 97, 101 (Tex.2000)). As such, Sabine and Northwest owed Farrar a duty to exercise reasonable......
-
Mullis v. Thaler, Civil Action 3:13-cv-121
...makes into competency. While Texas courts require an inmate to be competent before waiving state habeas review, see Ex parte Reynoso, 228 S.W.3d 163, 164 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007), neither party has identified a precise state standard used to assess competency. In federal cases, a court asks w......
-
Duncan v. First Tex. Homes, NO. 02–12–00464–CV
...222 S.W.3d 406, 408 (Tex.2006). A condition is unreasonably dangerous if it presents an unreasonable risk of harm. Brinson Ford, 228 S.W.3d at 163. “A condition poses an unreasonable risk of harm for premises-defect purposes when there is a ‘sufficient probability of a harmful event occurri......
-
Weldon v. Wal-Mart Stores Tex., L.L.C., CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15-CV-62
...Keetch, 845 S.W.2d at 264. Significantly, "a condition is not unreasonably dangerous simply because it is not foolproof." Brinson, 228 S.W.3d at 163 (citing Brookshire Grocery Co. v. Taylor, 222 S.W.3d 406, 410 (Tex. 2006)). Rather, "[a] condition poses an unreasonable risk of harm when the......
-
Mullis v. Lumpkin, 21-70008
...[a] writ of habeas corpus is attributable to [the] applicant's own continued insistence on foregoing [that] remedy." Ex parte Reynoso , 228 S.W.3d 163, 166 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (per curiam).18 The CCA has adhered to that rule in every example we can find.19 47 F.4th 390 Mullis has the "bu......