In Re: Howard Columber Holland v. the State of Texas

Conditionally Grant and Opinion Filed November 12, 2024

In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-24-01123-CV

IN RE HOWARD COLUMBER HOLLAND, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 422nd Judicial District Court
Kaufman County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 29317E-422

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Molberg, Carlyle, and Breedlove
Opinion by Justice Molberg
Relator Howard Columber Holland filed an application for writ of habeas

corpus in the trial court on September 8, 2023. In this original proceeding, relator

petitions for writ of mandamus, seeking to direct the trial court to sign an order on

the habeas application. After reviewing the petition and response, we conclude

relator is entitled to the requested relief, and we conditionally grant the writ of

mandamus.

Background

On January 24, 2011, relator was convicted of burglary of a habitation. His

five-year sentence was suspended, and he was placed on community supervision for
five years. On February 22, 2017, the trial court found relator had satisfactorily

complied with the terms and conditions of community supervision, and relator was

accordingly discharged.

As pertinent here, on September 8, 2023, relator filed an application for

habeas corpus, alleging involuntary plea and actual innocence. The record reflects

the application was delivered to the district attorney’s office the same day.

On September 24, 2024, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus, alleging

the trial court had not signed an order granting or denying the habeas application.

Relator attached to the petition five written requests—dated between December 2023

and August 2024—mailed to the trial court, asking it to rule on the application.

After we requested a response to the petition, on October 7, 2024, the State

filed a response to the habeas application in the trial court, arguing relator failed to

allege claims in his habeas application that could not have been previously alleged,

and alternatively, he failed to claim or show he is suffering from the collateral

consequences of his conviction.

On October 8, 2024, the trial court signed findings of fact and conclusions of

law, “find[ing] the State’s Response correct and adopt[ing] it as its own.” The trial

court concluded that both of relator’s habeas grounds should be denied and

recommended that the application be denied. The trial court did not enter any order

granting or denying the habeas application.

–2–
Discussion

To be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must show (1) the act sought to

be compelled is purely ministerial, and (2) there is no adequate remedy at law. In re

State ex rel. Weeks, 391 S.W.3d 117, 122 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding).

An act is ministerial if the relator has a clear right to the relief sought. Id. To show

“a clear right to the relief sought,” the relator must show that the facts and

circumstances of the case dictate one rational decision under well-settled and clearly

controlling legal principles. In re McCann, 422 S.W.3d 701, 704 (Tex. Crim. App.

2013) (orig. proceeding).

Article 11.072 “establishes the procedures for an application for a writ of

habeas corpus in a felony or misdemeanor case in which the applicant seeks relief

from an order or a judgment of conviction ordering community supervision.” TEX.

CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.072, § 1. Immediately upon filing an application under

article 11.072, the applicant shall serve a copy of the application on the attorney

representing the State. Id. art. 11.072, § 5(a). If the State files an answer, it must do

so within thirty days of the date of service, except that for good cause the convicting

court may grant the State one thirty-day extension; however, the State “is not

required to file an answer.” Id. art. 11.072, § 5(b), (c). Not later than the sixtieth

day after the day on which the State’s answer is filed, “the trial court shall enter a

written order granting or denying the relief sought in the application.” Id. art.

–3–
11.072, § 6(a).1 Such an order is required even when the trial court “determines

from the face of an application or documents attached to the application that the

applicant is manifestly entitled to no relief.” Id. art. 11.072, § 7(a) (providing that,

under such circumstances, “the court shall enter a written order denying the

application as frivolous”).

We observe that § 6 of article 11.072 requires the trial court to enter an order

within sixty days of the filing of the State’s answer, yet § 5 expressly states the State

is not required to file an answer. We must give effect to the plain meaning of a

statute’s language unless the language is ambiguous or the plain meaning leads to

absurd results that the legislature could not have possibly intended. Ex parte Perry,

483 S.W.3d 884, 902 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016). To avoid the absurd result of the trial

court not being required to rule on an article 11.072 application in cases where the

State opts not to answer, we construe § 6 to require in such cases an order within

sixty days of the last date on which the State could file an answer. See 43B George

E. Dix & John M. Schmolesky, Texas Practice Series: Criminal Practice and

Procedure § 58:33 n.4 (3d ed. 2011) (concluding that this is the likely intent of the

1
In contrast, under article 11.07, the trial court does not grant or deny relief. Instead, the trial
court has the duty to determine whether there are controverted, previously unresolved facts
material to the legality of the applicant’s confinement. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 3(c).
If the court decides there are no such issues, the clerk transmits to the court of criminal appeals a
copy of the application, among other things. Id. If the court determines there are such issues, it
resolves the issues and makes findings of fact, which the clerk then sends, along with the
application and other matters used by the court in resolving any issues, to the court of criminal
appeals. Id. art. 11.07, § 3(d). The court of criminal appeals ultimately decides the article 11.07
habeas application. Id. art. 11.07, § 5.
–4–
legislature); Ex parte Betancourt, No. 08-05-00063-CR, 2006 WL 1875576, at *4

(Tex. App.—El Paso July 6, 2006, no pet.) (not designated for publication) (stating

that article 11.072 “expressly requires the trial court to enter a written order in every

case either denying or granting the relief sought in the application”).

Here, the trial court was required to grant or deny relator’s habeas application

within ninety days after it was filed and served on the State on September 8, 2023.

See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.072, §§ 5–6. The trial court has not entered such

an order. Although the trial court recommended that relief be denied, we conclude

a mere recommendation is insufficient to meet the statutory requirement that the trial

court “shall enter a written order granting or denying the relief sought in the

application.” See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.072, § 6(a); cf. Ex parte Sinclair,

693 S.W.3d 346, 355 (Tex. Crim. App. 2024) (plurality op.) (stating that magistrate

judge’s recommendation within findings of fact and conclusions of law as to habeas

relief “did not purport to actually grant [the appellant] relief”). We agree with relator

that he is entitled to mandamus relief. See Arias v. State, No. 14-04-00972-CR, 2006

WL 2071846, at *1 n.2 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] July 27, 2006, no pet.)

(mem. op., not designated for publication) (recognizing that if “the trial court

decline[s] to rule on a properly filed habeas application, as article 11.072 requires,”

applicant may file “a petition for a writ of mandamus . . . requesting that the trial

judge be ordered to rule on his application”).

–5–
Conclusion

We conclude the trial court has violated its ministerial duty to rule on relator’s

habeas application in the manner required by statute, and relator is entitled to

mandamus relief. Accordingly, we conditionally grant relator’s petition for writ of

mandamus and direct the trial court to (1) enter a written order granting or denying

the relief sought in the habeas application within seven days of the date of this

opinion and accompanying order; and (2) file with the Clerk of the Court, within

eight days of the date of this Court’s opinion and order, a copy of the order

evidencing such compliance. A writ will issue only if the trial court fails to comply.

241123f.p05 /Ken Molberg/
KEN MOLBERG
Carlyle, J., would deny relator’s JUSTICE
petition as moot.

–6–