In Thompson v. Clark, 596 U.S. (2022), Cert No. 20-659, this Court held that a petitioner need not prove actual innocence after his conviction has been vacated and criminal charges dismissed to entitle him to seek compensation for his wrongful arrest and false imprisonment. The Court stated, "Questions concerning whether a criminal defendant was wrongly charged, or whether an individual may seek redress for wrongful prosecution, cannot reasonably depend on whether the prosecutor or court happened to explain why charges were dismissed. Therefore, requiring a plaintiff to show that his prosecution ended with an affirmative indication of innocence is not necessary. " Id.

I. The question presented is whether the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Thompson v. Clark, Cert No. 20-659 renders Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code §103.001(a)(l)(2)(C)(ii) unconstitutional.

In Reed v Gertz, Cert. No. 21-442, this Court held that the statute of limitations begins to run at the end of the state-court litigation.

II. The Question presented is whether Gandy 's Tim Cole Act application for wrongful conviction compensation under the applicable 3-year statute of limitation begins to run from the moment his writ of habeas corpus is granted and remanded or from the final date the trial court dismissed the case on remand.

Whether the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Thompson v. Clark, Cert No. 20-659 renders Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code unconstitutional