Arrellano, Wilberto
This text of Arrellano, Wilberto (Arrellano, Wilberto) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NO. WR-93,869-01
EX PARTE WILBERTO ARRELLANO, Applicant
ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS CAUSE NO. 1353257-A IN THE 339TH DISTRICT COURT FROM HARRIS COUNTY
Per curiam.
ORDER
Applicant was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The First Court of
Appeals affirmed his conviction. Arrellano v. State, No. 01-15-00814-CR (Tex. App. — Houston
[1st Dist.] June 7, 2018). Applicant filed this application for a writ of habeas corpus in the county
of conviction, and the district clerk forwarded it to this Court. See TEX . CODE CRIM . PROC. art.
11.07.
Applicant contends that trial counsel was ineffective because counsel failed to file a motion
in limine, and if necessary, object to inadmissible hearsay and opinion testimony that the witnesses’
identifications of applicant in the photo-spread were reliable. Applicant also contends that counsel
was ineffective for “opening the door” by asking a witness whether the prior convictions offered by 2
the State were the only times applicant had been in trouble with the law when both counsel and the
witness knew about a separate murder charge for which applicant was under investigation.
Applicant contends his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to present a motion for new trial
within ten days of filing it as required by TRAP 21.6. Based on the record, the trial court has
determined that trial and appellate counsels’ performances were deficient and that Applicant was
prejudiced. The trial court recommends granting a new trial, a new punishment hearing, and an out-
of-time motion for new trial.
However, based on our independent review of the entire record, this Court finds that
Applicant has failed to meet his burden to show counsel’s performance was deficient or that his
defense was harmed by the alleged deficient conduct. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668
(1984). We deny relief.
Filed: February 15, 2023 Do not publish
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Arrellano, Wilberto, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arrellano-wilberto-texcrimapp-2023.