Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District, San Antonio
From the County Court at Law No. 4, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2519 Honorable Sarah Garrahan, Judge Presiding
Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice, Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice.
This appeal arises from the trial court's denial of Richard Anthony Baldez's post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.072, § 1 (West Supp. 2013). We abate the appeal for the trial court to clarify its Order of June 25, 2013 consistent with article 11.072, section 7(a) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.072, § 7(a) (West Supp. 2013).
Baldez was convicted of the misdemeanor offense of driving while intoxicated; punishment was assessed at 180 days in the Bexar County jail, probated for eight months, and a $500 fine. A panel of this court affirmed the trial court's judgment. See Baldez v. State, 386 S.W.3d 324 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2012, no pet.). A petition for discretionary review was not filed in the Court of Criminal Appeals. On June 20, 2013, Baldez filed a pro se application for post-conviction writ of habeas corpus. Without holding a hearing, the trial court signed an order denying the writ. Baldez now appeals the trial court's denial of his application for writ of habeas corpus.
Standard of Review
We review a trial court's decision to grant or deny the relief requested on a writ of habeas corpus under an abuse of discretion standard. Kniatt v. State, 206 S.W.3d 657, 664 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Ex parte Cummins, 169 S.W.3d 752, 755 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, no pet.).
Baldez filed his application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to article 11.072 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, which establishes the procedures for an application in a "misdemeanor case in which the applicant seeks relief from an order or judgment of conviction ordering community supervision." Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.072, § 1 (West Supp. 2013). Section 7(a) provides that:
If the court determines from the face of the application or documents attached to the application that the applicant is manifestly entitled to no relief, the court shall enter a written order denying the application as frivolous. In any other case, the court shall enter a written order including findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.072, § 7(a) (West Supp. 2013).
Here, the trial court's order did not find the application "frivolous, " but failed to include findings of fact and conclusions of law. The entirety of the trial court's order provides as follows:
On this the 25th day of June, 2013, after reviewing the Applicant's Writ, the Court finds from the face of the application that the Applicant is manifestly entitled to no relief. All matters raised by Applicant can be determined from the appellate record. ...