EX PARTE DERRICK WAYNE LANGLEY (other)

Annotate this Case
Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion     Close This Window

















IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS



NOS. WR-49,324-03 & WR-49,324-04

EX PARTE DERRICK WAYNE LANGLEY, Applicant





ON APPLICATIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NOS. W92-45728-K(B) & W92-45729-K(B) IN THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 4

FROM DALLAS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R



Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court these applications for writs of habeas corpus. Ex parte Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant pleaded guilty to two charges of murder and received concurrent life sentences. No direct appeals were taken.

On, May 16, 2001, this Court denied Applicant's previous application challenging these convictions. On December 28, 2007 Applicant filed these subsequent applications, challenging the same convictions, in the district court. The instant applications fail to contain sufficient specific facts establishing that the current claims and issues could not have been presented previously or by a preponderance of the evidence, but for a violation of the United States Constitution, no rational juror could have found Applicant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Under such circumstances, this Court may not consider the merits of the instant applications or grant relief on the instant applications. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.07 §4.

However, the habeas records in these two causes reflect a discrepancy between the charges to which Applicant pleaded and the judgments in the two causes. While the plea papers show that Applicant pleaded guilty to two charges of murder, the judgments reflect one conviction for murder, and one conviction for attempted capital murder. This discrepancy could be corrected via a judgment nunc pro tunc, as it appears to be a clerical, rather than a judicial error. See Alvarez v. State, 605 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980).



Filed: March 5, 2008

Do not publish

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.