GRIFFIN, EX PARTE GARY v. the State of Texas

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS

NO. PD-0611-24

EX PARTE GARY GRIFFIN, Appellant

ON STATE'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
FROM THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS
HAYS COUNTY

NEWELL, J., filed a concurring opinion in which SCHENCK, P.J.,
joined.

Regardless of whether Appellant’s claim for habeas relief is cognizable,

the court of appeals appears to have imposed a timeliness requirement on

the filing of an application for post-conviction habeas corpus relief. 1 In other

words, the court of appeals held that Appellant’s filing of his application for

1
Ex parte Griffin, 703 S.W.3d 831, 836-38 (Tex. App. – Austin 2024, pet. granted).
Griffin Concurring Opinion - 2

habeas corpus relief was untimely and should not be considered. 2 This

holding is legally unsupported so I cannot agree to affirm the court of

appeals judgment. I agree with the Court’s decision to vacate and remand

so that the court of appeals can consider the propriety of Appellant’s writ

application without regard to the arbitrary deadline the court of appeals

imposed. Perhaps Appellant’s claim is not cognizable. Perhaps it is. The

court of appeals can answer that on remand. With these thoughts I join the

Court’s opinion.

Filed: September 3, 2025

Do Not Publish

2
Id. at 837 (“Although counsel is correct that there is no statutory deadline for requesting
an out-of-time appeal from the denial of an article 11.072 habeas application, his disregard
for his delay following the receipt of notice flies in the fact of the nature of habeas relief . . .
Under the facts of this case, Griffin has failed to show that he was entitled to an out-of-time
appeal as a matter of due process in light of his attorney’s 93-day delay in requesting the
out-of-time appeal without the barest reason given for the delay [in filing the instant habeas
application].”).