In the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas ══════════ No. WR-94,606-01 ══════════ EX PARTE LAWRENCE ISERAL HUBERT, Applicant ═══════════════════════════════════════ On Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus In Cause No. CR34892-A In the 253rd District Court Liberty County ═══════════════════════════════════════ YEARY, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SLAUGHTER, J., joined.

Once again, the Court is presented with an opportunity to re- examine our approach to post-conviction collateral attacks based on double jeopardy claims that were not raised on appeal. Instead of addressing the appropriate use of writs of habeas corpus in the context HUBERT – 2

of double jeopardy claims, the Court summarily grants relief citing Ex parte Woods, 664 S.W.3d 260 (Tex. Crim. App. 2022). For the reasons I dissented in that, and previous cases raising the same question, I dissent again here. Id. at 265–66 (Yeary, J., dissenting); see also Ex parte Estrada, 487 S.W.3d 210, 214–15 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (Yeary, J., dissenting) (arguing that a double jeopardy claim that can be raised for the first time on appeal should be raised in that proceeding, and that the failure to do so constitutes a forfeiture for purposes of obtaining relief in post-conviction habeas corpus proceedings, since habeas is not a substitute for direct appeal).

I would file and set this case to consider this issue of cognizability.

Because the Court still does not, I dissent.

FILED: December 6, 2023 PUBLISH