Brooks, Dywan Shenille
This text of Brooks, Dywan Shenille (Brooks, Dywan Shenille) 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 NOS. WR-84,462-05, 84,462-06, 84,462-07 & 84,462-08
EX PARTE DYWAN SHENILLE BROOKS, Applicant
ON APPLICATIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS CAUSE NOS. CR31009-B, CR31010-B, CR31011-B & CR31012-B IN THE 253RD DISTRICT COURT FROM LIBERTY COUNTY
Per curiam.
ORDER
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 these applications for writs of habeas corpus. Ex
parte Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of evading
arrest, tampering with evidence, and two counts of possession of a controlled substance. He was
sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment on each count. The Ninth Court of Appeals affirmed his
convictions. Brooks v. State, Nos. 09-15-00290-CR, 09-15-00291-CR, 09-15-00292-CR & 09-15-
00293-CR (Tex. App.—Beaumont June 15, 2016) (not designated for publication).
Applicant contends, among other things, that trial counsel failed to subpoena video footage 2
from an Exxon gas station. He also contends that the State failed to disclose this video footage in
violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
Applicant has alleged facts that, if true, might entitle him to relief. Strickland v. Washington,
466 U.S. 668 (1984); Ex parte Patterson, 993 S.W.2d 114, 115 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); Brady v.
Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). In these circumstances, additional facts are needed. As we held in
Ex parte Rodriguez, 334 S.W.2d 294, 294 (Tex. Crim. App. 1960), the trial court is the appropriate
forum for findings of fact. The trial court shall order trial counsel and the prosecutor to respond to
Applicant’s claims. The trial court may use any means set out in TEX . CODE CRIM . PROC. art. 11.07,
§ 3(d).
If the trial court elects to hold a hearing, it shall determine whether Applicant is indigent.
If Applicant is indigent and wishes to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an
attorney to represent him at the hearing. TEX . CODE CRIM . PROC. art. 26.04.
The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether video footage
from an Exxon station exists, counsel was deficient for not subpoenaing this video footage, and
Applicant was prejudiced. The trial court shall also make findings and conclusions as to whether the
State possessed video footage from an Exxon station and failed to disclose it, and whether it was
favorable and material. The trial court shall also make any other findings and conclusions that it
deems relevant and appropriate to the disposition of Applicant’s claims for habeas corpus relief.
These applications will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fact issues.
The issues shall be resolved within 90 days of this order. A supplemental transcript containing all
affidavits and interrogatories or the transcription of the court reporter’s notes from any hearing or
deposition, along with the trial court’s supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law, shall 3
be forwarded to this Court within 120 days of the date of this order. Any extensions of time must be
requested by the trial court and shall be obtained from this Court.
Filed: July 26, 2017 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
Brooks, Dywan Shenille, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brooks-dywan-shenille-texcrimapp-2017.