Court delays McGruder sentencing after article 11.072 habeas filing; state given time to respond

The 252nd District Court halted a scheduled sentencing after defense counsel filed a written habeas corpus application under article 11.072, asserting ineffective assistance of trial counsel and that the underlying plea may not have been knowing and voluntary.

Defense counsel told the court he had filed the 11.072 application and provided a courtesy copy at the hearing; the state requested time to review because it had not received notice before the morning of the docket. The judge declined to rule on the habeas filing that day, held the application in abeyance and instructed the parties that the court would set a new hearing date to consider the matter after the state and appellate division had an opportunity to respond.

The judge ordered that any motions intended to be considered at the reset sentencing be filed at least seven days before the new hearing date. The court also signaled it would examine any affidavits or testimony necessary if it determined those materials were required to adjudicate the habeas filing. Both sides were directed to prepare materials for the upcoming reset date so the court could avoid procedural error and the need to re‑set the matter again.

The case will return to the 252nd District Court on a date to be circulated by the clerk; the court asked counsel to coordinate on scheduling and to ensure filings comply with the seven‑day deadline to be considered at that hearing.

The court’s order to hold and later address the 11.072 filing preserves the defendant’s ability to pursue appellate review and allows the state an opportunity to respond before the sentence is finalized.