Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the appellant, Clark F. Williams, sought relief through a writ of habeas corpus, contending that continued prosecution for attempted murder would contravene double jeopardy protections. The district court conducted a hearing and subsequently denied the writ. Williams filed an appeal against this denial; however, the notice of appeal was submitted beyond the time limits prescribed by Tex. R. App. P. 41(b)(1). Consequently, the court, comprising Chief Justice Carroll and Justices Jones and B. A. Smith, dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court's decision was guided by established precedents such as *Ex parte Noe*, *Ex parte Moorehouse*, and *Ex parte Johnson*, which generally preclude appeals from denials of habeas corpus unless a hearing on the merits occurs. Additionally, the appeal failed to substantiate claims of racially discriminatory jury strikes and did not adequately demonstrate that jeopardy had attached in the first trial, referencing *Oregon v. Kennedy* and *Crist v. Bretz*. Ultimately, the court upheld the lower court's decision, with the appeal being dismissed for procedural deficiencies.
Legal Issues Addressed
Appealability of Habeas Corpus Decisionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court highlighted that appeals typically do not arise from refusals to issue a writ of habeas corpus unless a hearing on the merits has been conducted.
Reasoning: The court noted that generally, appeals do not arise from refusals to issue a writ of habeas corpus unless a hearing on the merits has been conducted.
Double Jeopardy and Habeas Corpussubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellant claimed that prosecution for attempted murder would breach double jeopardy protections.
Reasoning: Appellant Clark F. Williams filed for a writ of habeas corpus on September 17, 1995, arguing that continuing prosecution for attempted murder would violate double jeopardy principles.
Jurisdiction of Appealssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The decision was made to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Reasoning: The decision was made by Chief Justice Carroll and Justices Jones and B. A. Smith, with the appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, filed on January 24, 1996.
Racially Discriminatory Jury Strikes and Jeopardysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellant raised concerns regarding racially discriminatory jury strikes but failed to provide sufficient evidence to determine if jeopardy had attached.
Reasoning: Additionally, the application raised issues regarding racially discriminatory jury strikes, referencing *Oregon v. Kennedy* and *Crist v. Bretz*, but failed to provide sufficient facts to determine if jeopardy had attached during the first trial.
Timeliness of Appealsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appeal was dismissed due to the untimely filing of the notice under applicable procedural rules.
Reasoning: The court acknowledged that even if the district court's ruling could have been appealable, the appeal was dismissed due to untimely filing of the notice under Tex. R. App. P. 41(b)(1).