Blackshire, Ex Parte James

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedJuly 1, 2009
DocketAP-76,184
StatusPublished

This text of Blackshire, Ex Parte James (Blackshire, Ex Parte James) 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.

Bluebook
Blackshire, Ex Parte James, (Tex. 2009).

Opinion



IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS




NO. AP-76,184




EX PARTE JAMES BLACKSHIRE, Applicant





ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 94-51873-J IN THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. THREE

FROM DALLAS COUNTY




           Per curiam. Price, J., not participating.

O P I N I O N


            Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a child and sentenced to forty years’ imprisonment. He did not appeal his conviction.

            Applicant contends, inter alia, that counsel rendered ineffective assistance at his hearing on the motion to adjudicate guilt. Specifically, the Applicant contends that counsel was ineffective when he failed to investigate the facts of this case, and failed to present evidence in mitigation of punishment.

            The trial court has determined that trial counsel was ineffective in that counsel failed to conduct any independent investigation and that such ineffective representation prejudiced Applicant. We find, therefore, that Applicant is entitled to relief. The judgment of conviction in Cause No. 94-51873-J from the Criminal District Court No. Three of Dallas County is set aside and the Applicant is remanded to the Sheriff of Dallas County to answer the charges as set out in the motion to adjudicate guilt.

            Applicant’s grounds one and two are denied. United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622, 122 S.Ct. 2450, 153 L.Ed. 586 (2002). Applicant’s remaining claims are dismissed. Ex parte Torres, 943 S.W.2d. 469 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).

Delivered: July 1, 2009

Do Not Publish

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Ruiz
536 U.S. 622 (Supreme Court, 2002)
Ex Parte Torres
943 S.W.2d 469 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1997)
Ex Parte Young
418 S.W.2d 824 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Blackshire, Ex Parte James, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blackshire-ex-parte-james-texcrimapp-2009.