Smith, Tyler

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS

NO. WR-97,142-01

EX PARTE TYLER SMITH, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
IN CAUSE NO. W2018960-A
IN THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 7
DALLAS COUNTY

Finley, J., filed a concurring opinion in which Yeary, J.,
joined.

CONCURRING OPINION

I join the Court’s order. I write separately to distinguish this case from the

views that I expressed in Ex parte Mejia, — S.W.3d —, No. WR-82,126-02, 2026 WL

175235, at *15 (Tex. Crim. App. Jan. 22, 2026) (Finley, J., concurring in part and

dissenting in part).
SMITH CONCURRENCE — 2

In Mejia, I agreed with Judge Yeary’s long-held position that this Court

should abandon labeling successful Elizondo 1 applicants “actually innocent.” Id. But,

as Judge Yeary has previously expressed—with which I agree—the label is

appropriate in cases where “evidence . . . conclusively proves not just that a

reasonable jury, by clear and convincing evidence, would not have convicted him,

but that the applicant manifestly did not commit the offense.” Id. (quoting Ex parte

Cacy, 543 S.W.3d 802, 804 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (Yeary, J., concurring)).

This is one such case. In 2012, Applicant was adjudicated as a juvenile for

aggravated sexual offense and was placed on deferred adjudication probation. The

requirement that he register as a sex offender was deferred until completion of

Applicant’s community supervision. 2 Applicant successfully completed probation in

July 2015. No subsequent registration was ever ordered, and Applicant was never

required to register. On January 4, 2022, the Texas Department of Public Safety

(DPS) determined that Applicant was mistakenly registered and removed him from

1
Ex parte Elizondo, 947 S.W.2d 202 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).
2
“[T]he juvenile court may enter an order . . . deferring decision on requiring registration under
this chapter until the respondent has completed treatment for the respondent’s sexual offense as
a condition of probation.” Tex. Code Crim. Proc. § 62.352(b)(1). “Following successful
completion of treatment, the respondent is exempted from registration under this chapter unless a
hearing under this subchapter is held on motion of the prosecuting attorney, regardless of whether
the respondent is 18 years of age or older, and the court determines the interests of the public
require registration.” Id. § 62.352(c).
SMITH CONCURRENCE — 3

the registry. DPS did not notify the Dallas County District Attorney’s Office or

Applicant about its decision to remove Applicant from the registry.

Applicant was indicted in February 2021 for failing to register as a sex offender

in the months of October and November 2020. On April 6, 2021, Applicant pleaded

guilty to the charged offense and was sentenced to six months’ confinement in the

state jail. The record indicates that Applicant was erroneously added to the registry

by a Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) employee when Applicant was

processed for release from TDCJ on a separate conviction in 2020. At the time of his

guilty plea in this case, no one involved—the State, defense counsel, nor the trial

court—was aware that Applicant did not in fact have a duty to register.

Consequently, Applicant never committed an offense. The evidence in the

record “conclusively proves . . . by clear and convincing evidence . . . that the

applicant manifestly did not commit the offense.” Id. (quoting Cacy, 543 S.W.3d at

804 (Yeary, J., concurring)).

With these thoughts, I join the Court’s order.

Filed: March 5, 2026
Publish

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
NO. WR-97,142-01

EX PARTE TYLER SMITH, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
CAUSE NO. W2018960-A IN THE
CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NUMBER 7
DALLAS COUNTY

Per curiam. FINLEY, J., filed a concurring opinion in which YEARY, J.,
joined.

OPINION

Applicant was convicted of failure to register as a sex offender and sentenced

to six months’ imprisonment. Applicant did not file a direct appeal. 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 he is actually innocent and that his guilty plea was
2

not knowingly and voluntarily entered. Due to being erroneously added to the Sex

Offender Registry, all of the parties at the time of his plea incorrectly believed that

Applicant was required to register for a juvenile offense when he had successfully

completed his community supervision. The errors in the record were not

corrected until 2022. Based on the record, the trial court has determined that

Applicant has established by clear and convincing evidence that he is actually

innocent, and that his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered.

We agree. Relief is granted. Ex parte Elizondo, 947 S.W.2d 202 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1996); Ex parte Tuley, 109 S.W.3d 388 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). The

judgment in cause number F-2018960-Y in the Criminal District Court Number 7

of Dallas County is set aside, and Applicant is remanded to the custody of the

Sheriff of Dallas 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: March 5, 2026
Do not publish