Dawkins, Jessie Oneal

• Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
• Decided: June 5, 2019
• Docket: WR-87,960-02
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NO. WR-87,960-02

EX PARTE JESSIE O’NEAL DAWKINS, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS CAUSE NO. W15-75397-L(B) IN THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 5 FROM DALLAS 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 this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was originally charged with assault

with family violence by impeding breathing or circulation, with a prior conviction for assault with

family violence. The jury convicted Applicant of the lesser-included offense of assault with family

violence with a previous conviction for assault with family violence. Applicant elected to have

punishment decided by the trial court, which sentenced him to twenty-five years’ imprisonment.

The Fifth Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction but modified the judgment to correct various

errors in the offense of conviction, degree of offense, and pleas and findings on the enhancements. 2

Dawkins v. State, No. 05-16-00101-CR (Tex. App. — Dallas, Aug. 3, 2017) (not designated for

publication).

Applicant contends, among other things,1 that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance

because trial counsel failed to challenge the credibility of the State’s witnesses, failed to impeach the

complainant with prior inconsistent statements, failed to object to the introduction of a written

statement on the basis of hearsay, failed to make a Batson objection, failed to object when the trial

court did not arraign Applicant on enhancement allegations that were not included in the indictment

or object to their use to increase his punishment, and failed to object when the jury was given an

incorrect definition of “reasonable doubt.”

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). 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 to respond to Applicant’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The

trial court may use any means set out in TEX . CODE CRIM . PROC. art. 11.07, § 3(d). In the

appropriate case, the trial court may rely on its personal recollection. Id.

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 Applicant 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 the

performance of Applicant’s trial counsel was deficient and, if so, whether counsel’s deficient

1 This Court has reviewed Applicant’s other claims and finds them to be without merit. 3

performance prejudiced Applicant. The trial court shall also make any other findings of fact and

conclusions of law that it deems relevant and appropriate to the disposition of Applicant’s claim for

habeas corpus relief.

This application 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

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: June 5, 2019 Do not publish