Perhaps like some of you, I have from time to time pondered who held the record for filing the most 11.07 writ applications challenging a conviction. I believe I have maybe located the answer. And the story is kind of scary.

His name is Darrell J. Harper. He was convicted in Travis County on January 27, 2012 for commission of terroristic threat and retaliation occurring on June 22, 2010. He received concurrent six-year prison sentences. He apparently had been incarcerated since January 30, 2011 (and remained in the Travis County Correctional Center until late 2014).

Although he had perfected a direct appeal on February 1, 2012, he began filing for habeas relief as well. His first writ reached the CCA on March 26, 2012. The decision of the 3rd COA (affirming his convictions) came down on April 30, 2014. By then, Harper had already filed at least 40 11.07 applications and motions for reconsideration in many of those. Harper filed a motion for rehearing with the COA, which was denied on July 31, 2014. The mandate was issued on October 13, 2014.

Harper filed (too late) a PDR on October 21, 2014. His first "real" writ application was dismissed for non-compliance on December 17, 2014. The one that counted (#43) was denied on March 4, 2015 (along with #44). Writ #45 was also denied on March 18, 2015. Denial of #46 came on March 25, 2015. Number 47 was denied on April 1, 2015. Number 48, received by the CCA on June 4, 2015 was dismissed under section 4 on July 1, 2015. Number 49 received like treatment on August 12, 2015. That pattern continued until April 13, 2016, when number 55 received an abuse of writ order. The day before (4/12/16), Harper had been denied discretionary mandatory supervision release for unsatisfactory institutional adjustment, poor potential for rehabilitation, and because release would endanger the public.

Subsequent to the abuse order, Harper has filed at least an additional 19 applications. Number 74 received its order today. I, at least, hope that no one else has gummed up the system to that extent. Someone else may have filed more than 74, but probably not in a period of 56 months.

Perhaps #74 is the end. Harper will be released from prison (having discharged his sentence) at the end of this month. His problem originated with alleged discriminatory employment issues and failure to receive unemployment benefits. His ability to support himself is in doubt.

While not yet a record holder in the 11.07 department, another inmate deserves mention under this topic due to the number of times and ways in which he has sought post-conviction relief.

Reginald A. Noble was convicted of the aggravated sexual assault of his niece in December of 2000 and given a life sentence. He is now 63 years of age and becomes eligible for release on parole in mid-2030. The jury's decision (challenged on a single ground concerning outcry testimony) was affirmed by the 8th Court of Appeals on February 14, 2002. His pro se PDR was refused on September 3, 2003. His initial 11.07 writ was denied on December 8, 2004. Another was denied on February 1, 2012. End of story? No, only the beginning.

He also filed several further 11.07 writs, most of which were dismissed under sec. 4: on November 3, 2010, January 19, 2011, March 7, 2012, October 23, 2013, January 8, 2014, May 14, 2014. His ninth attempt drew an abuse of writ order on September 17, 2014. But the writ applications continued, generating more abuse of writ notations: on November 26, 2014, October 21, 2015, August 24, 2016, December 7, 2016, January 30, 2019, May 8, 2019, September 25, 2019, November 11, 2020, March 17, 2021, and October 9, 2024. One more 11.07 application was dismissed as non-compliant on August 7, 2019.

Having no success under 11.07, Noble tried writs for mandamus. Leave to file his original petitions filed with the CCA was denied: on March 4, 2003, September 14, 2011, December 21, 2011, February 1, 2012, October 10, 2012, two on February 6, 2013, August 21, 2013, June 24, 2015, September 9, 2015, December 23, 2015, January 27, 2016, August 22, 2016, January 11, 2017, April 7, 2017, September 19, 2018, December 23, 2020, and May 11, 2022.

Noble also filed original applications for habeas corpus in the CCA, which were denied: on December 18, 2013, April 30, 2014, July 9, 2014, November 26, 2014, January 14, 2015, December 23, 2015, June 1, 2016, December 7, 2016, January 11, 2017, May 10, 2017, and three on February 28, 2018.

Noble also thought he might gain relief by filing for habeas corpus or mandamus in the trial court and then appealing to the court of appeals. This occurred in 08-11-00185-CR, 05-19-00221-CV, 05-19-00596-CV, and 05-19-01332-CV.

He also filed for relief directly from the court of appeals. In 05-13-00904-CR, he sought to permission to file a late notice of appeal from the 2000 judgment. In 05-15-00269-CR, he sought to challenge a ruling by the trial court on one of his 11.07 writs. In 05-17-01409-CR and 05-20-00757-CR, he simply asked the court to find his conviction was void. In 05-19-01521-CV, he sought a writ of quo warranto. In 05-20-00033-CR, he claimed the proceeding was an interlocutory civil appeal from the 2000 judgment. In 05-22-00797-CR, 05-23-00907-CR, and 05-23-01179-CR, he sought to challenge the trial court's failure to rule on various motions. He made the same claims again in 05-25-00852-CR, asserting he was appealing his conviction under section 51.014(d) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.

Noble made attempts to gain habeas relief in the federal courts, that resulted in a sanction warning being issued. 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 27214.

Noble may have nothing better to do, but the courts are not playthings.