The Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct has issued a formal public warning to Judge Lori Gray of the 262nd District Court in Harris County after determining she failed to comply with repeated mandates from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in a felony habeas corpus case — a delay that spanned nearly five years.
The warning, delivered on October 20, 2025, centers on Judge Gray’s handling of Ex parte Walter Hinton, Jr., a post-conviction habeas case involving claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The Court of Criminal Appeals initially remanded the case to her court in June 2018, ordering that findings of fact and conclusions of law be issued within 90 days. That deadline was not met.
Missed Deadlines, Repeated Delays, and a Show-Cause Order
Despite repeated reminders from the state’s highest criminal court — including direct letters in December 2020 and August 2021 — the required findings were still not submitted.
Judge Gray requested several deadline extensions, including in August 2022, even after the Court of Criminal Appeals had made clear that no further extensions would be granted. That request was denied.
By February 2023, after years of non-compliance, the Court of Criminal Appeals issued a rare and serious Order to Show Cause, requiring Judge Gray to explain under oath why she should not be held in contempt. One day later, she signed the findings — a document that had already been sitting unsigned since September 27, 2021.
Judge Gray’s Explanation
In her sworn response, Judge Gray explained that she inherited the Hinton case shortly after assuming the bench in 2019. She stated that the 262nd District Court lacked an internal tracking system to monitor post-conviction writ deadlines, and that the COVID-19 pandemic caused significant docket disruptions. She also indicated that some filings had been mistakenly placed in the underlying criminal case rather than the habeas file, delaying her awareness of court obligations. Judge Gray further claimed that the Harris County District Attorney’s Office had traditionally handled tracking and calendaring for post-conviction writ matters.
The Commission rejected that justification, explaining that after 2014 rule changes, responsibility for tracking habeas deadlines rests squarely with the court — not prosecutors. The Commission concluded that the scope and duration of the delay demonstrated a failure to comply with mandatory procedural law and a lack of expected judicial competency.
Public Warning Issued
The Commission found that Judge Gray violated the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct by failing to meet basic legal obligations of her office. Specifically, it ruled that she violated Canon 2A, which requires judges to comply with the law, and Canon 3B(2), which requires judges to maintain legal competence and professionalism. The Commission stated that her inaction undermined due process and eroded public confidence in the judiciary.
Why This Matters
Habeas corpus proceedings are often the last legal safeguard for individuals alleging wrongful convictions, unconstitutional proceedings, or ineffective representation. These cases directly implicate personal liberty, constitutional protections, and fundamental fairness.
Under Texas law, trial courts have 180 days to issue habeas findings once ordered by the Court of Criminal Appeals. In this case, it took more than 1,700 days, multiple missed deadlines, and the threat of contempt before the required findings were finally signed.
Legal advocates say the case reveals broader concerns about judicial accountability, administrative court tracking systems, and procedural delays in Harris County’s felony bench.
Disclaimer
The content provided in this publication is for educational and informational purposes only. The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News strives to deliver accurate and impactful stories. However, readers are advised to seek professional legal counsel and guidance for their specific legal inquiries and concerns. The publication does not assume any responsibility for actions taken by individuals based on the information presented.
Additionally, while every effort is made to ensure the reliability of the information, the publication does not warrant the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of the content. Readers are encouraged to verify any legal information with official sources and to use their discretion when interpreting and applying the information provided.
A Couple of Our Other Reads
You may be interested in our publishing on the 772 arrest notifications TCOLE received in 2024..
Or you may find our publishing on a newly elected Texas sheriff’s battle with TCOLE over the accuracy of his personal history statement of interest.
Follow Us on Social Media
If you are interested in staying updated on matters about your government in Texas and other important stories, trust The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News to provide reliable information that matters to you. You can follow us on social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, X, Reddit, YouTube, Tumblr, and LinkedIn to stay connected and informed.
FACEBOOK: TheHawksEyeNews
INSTAGRAM: Hawk_s_Eye_C_and_N
X: TheHawksEyeNews
REDDIT: TheHawksEyeCN
YOUTUBE: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News
TUMBLR: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News
LINKEDIN: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News
Table of Contents
Discover more from The Hawk’s Eye - Consulting & News | A Texas News Source
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.