# Ex Parte Torres

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · April 16, 1997 · 943 S.W.2d 469

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9683415

## Case

- **Full name:** Ex Parte Raymond TORRES
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** April 16, 1997
- **Citations:** 943 S.W.2d 469; 1997 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 20; 1997 WL 183956
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Baird
- **Judges:** Keller, Baird, Overstreet, Meyers, Price
- **Cited by:** 954 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9683415

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- recognizing that "[i]n most instances, the record on direct appeal is inadequate to develop an ineffective assistance claim" and stating that while generally a claim previously raised and rejected on direct appeal is not cognizable, this doctrine should not apply "where direct…
- holding that rejection of ineffective assistance claim on direct appeal does not bar relitigation of it on habeas corpus to the ex tent that applicant seeks to gather and introduce additional evidence
- noting that motion for new trial hearing not always suited for developing record for ineffective assistance claim be cause trial may not be transcribed and allegedly ineffective counsel may still be representing defendant
- observing that legislative intent in adopting the comparable provisions of Article 11.07, § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, governing subsequent applications for non-capital post-conviction writs of habeas corpus, and which was promulgated in the same legislative enactmen…

## Opinion text

BAIRD, Judge,
concurring.
While it is true that McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467 , 111 S.Ct. 1454 , 113 L.Ed.2d 517 (1991), dealt with the “cause and prejudice standard,” it is more important to consider the context in which that standard was developed.
State courts consider only habeas applications from inmates convicted of state crimes. However, federal courts consider habeas petitions from defendants convicted of either state or federal crimes. The federal courts in McCleskey considered the habeas application of a state prisoner. The “cause and prejudice” standard established a procedural bar which precludes federal courts from considering habeas applications from state inmates. Because Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07 deals exclusively with a unitary system of state inmates and state courts, the majority’s reliance on McCleskey is misplaced, ante at 473-474, and for that reason, I cannot join the majority opinion.
Accordingly, I join only the judgment of the Court.
OVERSTREET, MEYERS and PRICE, JJ., join this opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9683415. Public record. Not legal advice.