Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Ex Parte Shawn Paul Robinson
Citation: Not availableDocket: 01-22-00583-CR
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; January 11, 2023; Texas; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
The Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas at Houston issued an order abating the appeal in the case of Ex parte Shawn Paul Robinson, following the appellant’s appeal from the trial court's denial of his application for writ of habeas corpus. The State filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the appeal was not jurisdictionally valid as the trial court had not ruled on the merits of the application and the notice of appeal was untimely. The court noted that an appeal is only permitted when the trial court has considered the merits, referencing case law that supports this principle. The trial court had issued a summary denial without a hearing, and the official court reporter confirmed no record was made. In response to the State's motion, the appellant requested the court to abate the appeal for clarification on whether the trial court had indeed ruled on the merits, claiming that a hearing was unnecessary as the issues raised were purely legal. The appellant sought clarification from the trial court, which may not currently have jurisdiction to issue an order nunc pro tunc. The State was unopposed to this abatement. Consequently, the court granted the appellant's motion, abated the appeal, and remanded the case for the trial court to clarify its orders within fifteen days. A supplemental clerk’s record and reporter’s record of any related hearings are to be filed within thirty days. All briefing deadlines are suspended during the abatement period, rendering the State's motion for an extension moot. The appeal will be reinstated post-clarification. Additionally, the appellant mentioned potential issues with the timeliness of the appeal related to two denials of relief by the trial court.