No. 25-219

Jay Warren Arnold v. Texas

Lower Court: Texas
Docketed: 2025-08-22
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Tags: constitutional-challenge criminal-procedure due-process habeas-corpus right-to-counsel sixth-amendment
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus Punishment Securities Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2025-11-07
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Is the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure §11.07(4)(a)-(c) unconstitutional as applied to the petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and did the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals violate due process by dismissing his habeas corpus application despite newly available evidence?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

(1) Is the statute under which the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed petitioner’s application for writ of habeas corpus, Texas Code of Criminal Procedure §11.07(4 )(a) – (c), unconstitutional as applied to petitioner as an abridgment of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, since the application was his first application in which he was able to obtain representation by counsel in the preparation and filing thereof? Question (2) Did the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals violate petitioner’s right to due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments by dismissing his application for writ of habeas corpus notwithstanding newly available evidence that warranted consideration of his applic ation under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Art.11.07(4)(a) – (c)? Question (3) Was petitioner denied due process of law under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments when he was tried and convicted in the absence of an indictment returned by a duly constituted grand jury?

Docket Entries

2025-11-10
Petition DENIED.
2025-10-08
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/7/2025.
2025-08-20
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 22, 2025)

Attorneys

Jay Warren Arnold
Douglas Milton BarlowDouglas M. Barlow Attorney At Law, Petitioner
Douglas Milton BarlowDouglas M. Barlow Attorney At Law, Petitioner