.~ ' . CAUSE No.-1286119-A
EX PARTE, § IN THE TEXAS COURT
ERICKSON, WILLIAM EDWARD, § OF ~RIMINAL APPEALS,
(Applicant) § AUSTIN, TEXAS
APPLICANT'S MOTION TO REMAND PROCEEDINGS TRIAL COURT
TO CONDUCT PROCEEDINGS
TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF
NOW COMES, WILLIAM E. ERICKSON, applicant, proceeding pro
se in the above styled and numbered cause, respect~~~~~~~,C~S~ this court to remand this habeas corpus case back to the trial
court to conduct a fact-finding hearing pursuant to V.A.C.C.P.
art·. 11.07., §3(d), whereas, there are still controverted, previously
unresolved facts material to the legality of the applicant's
confinement, which requires such a hearing to resolve his claims
of ineffective assistance of trial and/or appellate counsel.
In support thereof, applicant would show the court the following:
I.
1. Applicant filed his Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus
on January 2~, 2015, raising the following claims of ineffective
assistance of counsel:
a. Trial Counsel failed to object to inadmissible and prejudicial
victim impact testimonies/evidence;
1. b. Trial Counsel failed to preserve error by failing to object
to court sentencing applicant in absence of a complete,
statutorilly required (PSI) report;
c. Trial Counsel failed to object to Judge's predetermination
of applicant's life sentence prior to punishment;
e. Appellate Counsel failed to file a Motion for New Trial raising
the above stated ineffective assistance of counsel claims.
See: (Trial Court Cause No. 1286119-A, !79th District Court,
Harris County, Texas)
2. The State filed its Original Answer on February 11, 2015,
allegin3 there ¥Tere no contraverted, previously unresolved facts
material to the legality of ~pplicant's confinement;
3. On February 15, 2015, the trial court, adopted the State's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and recommended
relief be denied, without conducting any fact finding procedures
pursuant to V.A.C.C.P. art. 11.07, §3(D);
4. pRIOR TO FILING APPLICANT'S APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS, APPLICANT PROVIDED HIS TRIAL ATTORNEY, MR. RICK GONZALEZ,
WITH QUESTIONS PRETAIN~NG TO APPLICANT'S INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE
OF COUNSEL CLAIMS. However, counsel failed to answer any questions
or respond to applicant's allegations. See: (EXHIBIT-A)
2• 5. The Texas Court of Criminal App~als in THOMPSON V. STATE,
9 S.W.3d 808, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999), emphasived that a claim
of ineffective assistance of counsel must be supported by a record
containing direct evidence as to why counsel took the actions
or made the omissions relied upon as the basis for the claim(s).
6. While there may be some actions that unquestionably fall outside
the spectrum of objectively reasonable trial strategy, generally,
a defendant will have to offer evidence from his attorney
explaining his actions~in order to overcome the presumption that
counsel acted pursuant to a reasonable trial strategy. See:
GARCIA V. STATE, 57 S.W.3d 436, 440 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001).
7. Due to applicant's indigent status and incarceration, he is
unable to personally interview his trial and/or appellate attorneys,
to obtain reasons for his actions and/or omissions, nor does
applicant have means of obtaining an attorney or investigator
for this purpose.
8. In order of obtaining counsel's reasons for his actions and/or
omissions, applicant has to rely upon the trial court ordering
counsel to answer applicant's allegations of ineffective
assistance of counsel pursuant to V.A.C.C.P. art. 11.07, §3(d).
II.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, applicant prays this court
remand this case back to the trial court to conduct proceedin~s
pursuant to V.A.C.C.P. art. 11.07, §3(d), for the reasons stated
herein. -1-h Executed on this ~~fcj? day of /.'/ - - - - - - ' 2015. ·---- 3. OATH
I, WILLIAM E. ERICKSON, do declare under the penalty of perjury
that the facts stated herein my motion to remand is true and
correct pursuant to Tex.Civ.Prac.Rem. Code, §132.001 - §132.003. +h Executed on this.~/?rc).? day of 1/ , 2015. ------------------
William E. Erickson
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Service has been accomplished by sending a copy of this
instrument to the following address: Sharon Y. Chu (Asst.Dist.Attny.)
1201 Franklin St.
Houston, Texas, 77002
3060 FM 3514 #1805402
Beaumont, Texas, 77705
4. WILLIAM ERICKSON 3060 FM 3514 #1805402 BEAUMONT, TEXAS, 77705
MR. RICk GONZALEZ (Attny at Law) 2008 RAINBOW DR. HOUSTON, TEXAS, 77023
RE: REQUESTING ANSWERS FOR HABEAS CORPUS INVESTIGATION:
Dear Mr. Gonzalez: (Greetings)
I am in process of conducting an investigation and evaluation of some potential claims to be pursued on an art. 11.07, Writ of Habeas Corpus, and I would like for you to answer the included questitins at your earliest convenience, or by the end of '1.- i- 15 ~~--~--~-------- , if possible. Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Best Regards: 1
1/~ f. WILLIAM ERICKSON ftc/!t;u
ATTORNEY QUESTIONS
A. The Court of Appeals for the 14th District of Texas held that you failed to preserve error, by failing to object to the trial court sentencing me in the absence of a complete, statutorily required PSI Report, whereas, the report excluded: fl) a proposed client supervision plan, {2) a drug and alcohol evaluation, and (3) a psychological evaluation. See: Cause No. 14-12-00767-CR. See also: (RR~I, p.5)
1. QUESTION ONE: Do you believe the PSI Report in my case should had contained a PROPOSED CLIENT SUPERVISION PLAN for the iudge's review/determination of sentence? If not, please state your reason{s):
QUESTION TWO: In retrospect, do you believe you should had obiected to the trial court sentencing me in the absence of a Proposed Client Supervision Plan in the PSI Report? If not, please state your reason(s) for not obiecting:
QUESTION THREE: Do you believe the PSI Report in my case should had contained a DRUG and ALCOHOL EVALUATION Report for the judge's review/determination of sentence, since evidence existed that suggested drugs and/or alcohol may could had contributed to the commission of the alleged offense? If not, please state ·your reason{s):
QUESTION .FOUR: In retrospect, do you believe you should had objected to the trial co~rt sentencing me in the absence of a Drug and Alcohol Evaluation Report in the PSI Report based on the facts of this case? If not, please state your reason(s) for not objecting:
2. QUESTION FIVE: Do you believe the PSI Report in my case should had contained a PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION Report for the judge's review/determination of sentence? If not, please state your reason(s):
QUESTION SIX: In retrospect, do you believe you should had objected to the trial court sentencing me in the absence of a Psychological Evaluation Report in the PSI report, since evidence existed that I was diagnosed with fl). Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, f2). Bipolar-Disorder, and {3). Panic Disorder with Agoraphobia? If not, please state your reason(s) for not objecting:
B. During the punishment phase, (PSI Hearing), the State called the following witnesses to provide Victim Impact Statements prior to the Court's sentence or pronouncement of sentence: 1. RONALD AINSWORTH, 2. ELIZABETH AINSWORTH, and 3. NICOLE HIDALGO
See: PSI Hearing, dated s~22-12
QUESTION ONE: Do you believe the Trial Court erred by allowing 'I
these witnesses to provide their Victim Impact Statements in testimony form, PRIOR to the Court's sentence of me or pronouncement of sentence? If not, please state your reason(s):
3 QUESTION TWO: In retrospect, do you believe you should had obj~cted to the State's presentment of these witnesses Victim Impact Statements prior to the Court sentencing me, or pronouncing sentence? If not, please state your reason(s) for not objecting:
C. The record reveals that during the admittance of my guilty plea before the Honorable Randy Roll, on April 30, 2012, a "LIFE SENTENCE," with the initials R.R., was written on the guilty plea form. The Court of Appeals for the 14th District of Texas, in addressing this issue, held this issue was not objected too prior to sentencing, thus, was waived for appellate review. See: {c.o.A. No. 14-12-00767-CR)
QUESTION ONE: Do you believe the Honorable Randy Roll erred by making a notation of a predetermined "LIFE'' sentence before a punishment hearing was conducted and evidence determined? If not, please state your reason(s):
QUESTION TWO: Do you believe that the hand writing of the "LIFE SENTENCE'' notation matches the Hon. Randy Roll's signature on the same ~ocument? If not, please state your reason(s):
4 QUESTION THREE: In retrospect, do you believe you should had objected to the Honorable judge, Randy Roll, making a predetermined~'-'.•
sentence of "LIFE" before the punishment hearing was conducted and evidence reviewed? If not, please state your reason(s) for not objecting:
D~ Prior to advising me to plead guilty to the offense of murder, you were aware that each alleged eyewitness to the alleged offense provided police with a different version of events, and one witness, EUGENE HOLLAND, told police I shot Mr. Ricardo Hidalgo after Ricardo reached for his gun inside a table drawer.
QUESTION ONE: Do you believe I should had been made aware of fhe witnesses conflicting statements made to police prior to advising me to plead guilty to the murder charge and hope for mercy of the court? If not, please state your reasons I was not made aware of these exculpatory facts:
QUESTION TWO~ Do you believe each eyewitness to the alleged offense should had been independently investigated and interviewed for defense purposes? If not, please state your reason(s) for not conducting an independent investigation and interview of each alleged eyewitness to the alleged offense:
E. Prior to the punishment phase, I requested several character witnesses to speak on my behalf (e.g. mother, wife, etc.), however, you advised me that a support letter written by each individual would be the best strategy for time purposes.
5. QUESTION ONE: Do you believe you should have interviewed any of the character witnesses in which you received support letters from for defense purposes? If not, please state your reason(s) for not interviewing each character witness who provided a support letter on my behalf:
QUESTION TWO: Do you believe you should had conducted an investigation into my mental history, after discovering I had been admitted into two different mental health faculties due to my severe mental defects? If not, please state your reason(s) for not conducting an investigation into my mental health history:
QUESTION THREE: Do you believe that you should had requested the appointment of a mental health expert for evaluation purposes and defense purposes after learning of my mental health hi~tory
through the support letters, jail doctors, and myself? if not, please state your reason(s) for not seeking and obtaining a mental health expert for evaluation and/or defense purposes:
Please ,be advised that each of the above questions needs to be answered under oath, sworn to/by a ltWARY PUllLIC of the State of Texas. I sincerely THANK YOU for your assistance in answering these vital questions.
Respectfully Submitted;
lflffJutldgfk~ William Erickson 3060 FM 3514 #1805402 Beaumont, Texas, 77705 6. CAUSE NO. 1286119-A
ERICKSON, WILLIAM EDWARD, § OF CRIMINAL APPEALS,
APPLICANT'S MOTION TO REMAND PROCEEDINGS BACK TO TRIAL COURT
TO CONDUCT PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO V.A.C.C.P. ART. 11.07, §3(d)
TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF SAID COURT:
se in the above styled and numbered cause, respectfully asks
this court to remand this habeas corpus case back to the trial
court to conduct a fact-finding hearing pursuant to V.A.C.C.P.
art. 11.07, §3(d), whereas, there are still controverted, previously
unresolved facts material to the legality of the applicant's
confinement, which requires such a hearing to resolve his claims
In support thereof, applicant would show the court the following:
I .
on January~~' 2015, raising the following claims of ineffective
a. Trial Counsel failed to object to inadmissible and prejudicial
1. b. Trial Counsel failed to preserve error by failing to object
c. Trial Counsel failed to object to Judge's predetermination
'"\. • • 0 •
d. Trial Counsel failed to conduct an adequate 1nvest1gat1on
into the facts of the case for guilt-innocence and/or punishment
purposes; and
e. Appellate Counsel failed to file a Motion for New Trial raising
See: (Trial Court Cause No. 1286119-A, 179th District Court,
2. The State filed its Original Answer on February 11~ 2015,
allegin~ there Here no contraverted, previously unresolved facts
3. On February 15, 2015, the trial court, adopted the State's
Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and recommended
relief be denied, without conducting any fact finding procedures
4. ~RIOR TO FILING APPLICANT'S APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS, APPLICANT PROVIDED HIS TRIAL ATTORNEY, MR. RICK §ONZALEZ,
WITH QUESTIONS PRETAINING TO APPLICANT'S INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE
OF COUNSEL CLAIMS. However, counsel failed to answer any questions
2.
J 5. The Texas Court of Criminal App~als in THOMPSON V. STATE,
9 S.W.3d 808·, 813 (Tex.Crim.Ap~. 1999), emphasived that a·claim
of ineffective assistance of counsel must be supported by a record
containing direct evidence as to why counsel took the actions
or made the omissions relied upon as the basis for the claim(s).
6. While there may be some actions that unquestionably fall outside
the spectrum of objectively reasonable trial strategy, generall.y,
explaining his actions.in order to overcome the presumption that
7. Due to applicant's indigent status and incarceration, he is
unable to personally interview his trial and/or appellate attorneys,
applicant have means of obtaining an attorney or investigator
8. In order of obtaining counsel's reasons for his actions and/or
omissions, applicant has to rely upon the trial court ordering
counsel to answ~r applicant's ;allegations of ineffective
assistance of counsel pursuant to V.A.C.C.P. art. 11.07, §3(d).
remand this case back to the trial court to conduct proceedin3s
pursuant to V.A.C.C.P. art. 11.07, §3(d), for the reasons stated
herein.
Executed on this~~'c_)7 _____ day of ; / ·1-h 2015. ---- I
3. OATH
I, WILLIAM E. ERICKSON, do declare under the penalty of perjury
correct pursuant to Tex.Civ.Prac.Rem. Code, §132.001 - §132.003. ·J.-h t~ -·-:.. Executed on this ~J?rc).7 day of 1/ , 2015. ------------------
instrument to the following address: Sharon Y. Chu (Asst.Dist.Attny.)
4. \ WILLIAM ERICKSON 3060 FM 3514 #1805402 BEAUMONT, TEXAS, 77705
MR. RICK GONZALEZ (Attny at Law) 2008 RAINBOW DR. HOUSTON, TEXAS, 77023
Dear Mr. Gonzalez; (Greetings)
I am in process of conducting an investigation and evaluation of some J?Otential claims to be pursued on an art. 11.07, Writ of Habeas Corpus, and I would like for you to answer the included questitins at your earliest convenience, or by the end of ').- i- 15 , if possible. Thank you for your assistance ~~------~-------- in this matter.
Best Regards; 1
1/~f:~/ WILLIAM ERICKSON
A. The Court of Appeals for the 14th District of T~xas h~ld
that you fa i 1 ed to preserve error, by ·fai 1 i ng to object to the trial court sentencing me in the absence of a complete, statutorily required PSI Report, whereas, the report excluded: {1) a proposed client supervision plan, {2) a drug and alcohol evaluation, and (3) a psychological evaluation. See: Cause No. 14-12-00767-CR. See also: (RR~I, p.5)
1. QUESTION ONE: Do you believe the PSI Report in my case should had contained a PROPOSED CLIENT SUPERVISION PLAN for the iudge's review/determination of sentence? If not, please state your reason{s): l .. -.
QUESTION TWO: In retrospect, do you believe you should had obiected to the trial court sentencing me in the absence of a Proposed Client Supervision Plan in the PSI Report? If not, please state your reason(s) for not obiecting:
QUESTION THREE: Do you believe the PSI Report 1n my case should had contained a DRUG and ALCOHOL EVALUATION Report for the judge's review/determination of sentence, since evidence existed that suggested drugs and/or alcohol may could had contributed io the commission of the alleged offense? If not, please state your reason~s):
QUESTION .FOUR: In retrospect, do you believe you •Should had objected to the trial court sentencing me in the absence of a Drug and Alcohol Evaluation Report in the PSI Report based on the facts of this case? If not, please state your reason(s) for not objecting:
2. QUESTION FIVE: Do you believe the PSI Report in my case should had contained a PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION Report for the judge's review/determinat~on of sentence? If not, please state your reason{s):
QUESTION SIX: In retrospect, do you believe you should had objected to the trial court sentencing me in the absence of a Psychological Evaluation Report in the PSI report, since evidence existed that I was diagnosed with ~1). Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, ~2). Bipolar-Disorder, and (3). Pariic Disorder with Agoraphobia? If not, please state your reason{s) for not objecting:
B. During the punishment phase, {PSI Hearing), the State called the following witnesses to provide Victim Impact Statements prior to the Court's sentence or pronouncement of sentence: 1. RONALD AINSWORTH, 2. ELIZABETH AINSWORTH, and.3. NICOLE HIDALGO
See: PSI Hearing, dated 8-22-12
QUESTION ONE: Do you believe the Trial Court erred by allowing I
these witnesse~ to provide their Victim Impact Statements in testimony form, PRIOR 'to the Court's sentence of me or pronouncement of sentence? If not, please state your reason{s):
3 QUESTION TWO: In retrospect, do you believe you should had obj~cted to the State's presentment of these witnesses Victim Impact Statements prior to the Court sentencing me, or pronouncing sentence? If not, please state your reason~s) for not objecting:
C. The record reveals that during the admittance of my guilty plea before the Honorable Randy Roll, on April 30, 2012, a ''LIFE SENTENCE," with the initials R.R., was written on the guilty plea form. The Court of Appeals for the 14th District of Texas, in addressing this issue, held this issue was not objected too prior to sentencing, thus, was waived for appellate review. See: (C.O.A. No. 14-12-00767-CR)
QUESTION ONE: Do you believe th~ Honorable Randy Roll erred by making a notation of a predetermined "LIFE'' sentence before a punishment hearing was conducted and evidence determined? If not, please state your reason~s):
QUESTION TWO: Do you believe th~t the hand writing of the "LIFE SENTENCE'' n6tation matches the Hon. Randy Roll's signature on the same ~ocument? If not, please state your reason(s):
4 QUESTION THREE: In retrospect, do you believe you should had objected to the Honorable judge, Randy Roll, making a predeterminedi~!.
sentence of "LIFE" before the punishment hearing was conducted and evidence reviewed? If not, please state your reason(s) for not objecting:
n~ Prior to advising me to plead guilty to the offense of murder, you were aware that each alleged eyewitness to the alleged offense provided police with a different version of events, and one witness, EUGENE HOLLAND,. told police I shot Mr. Ricardo Hidalgo after Ricardo reached for his gun inside a table drawer.
QUESTION ONE: Do you believe I should had been made aware of the witnesses conflicting statem~nts made to police prior to advising me to plead guilty to the murder charge and hope for mercy of the court? If not, please state your reasons I was not made aware of these exculpatory facts~
QUESTION TWO~ Do you believe each eyewitness to the alleged offense should had been independently investigated and interviewed for defense ~urposes? If not, please state your reason(s) for not conducting an indepen~ent investigation and interview of each alleqed eyewitness to the alleged offense:
E. Prior to the punishment phase, I requested several character witnesses to speak on my behalf (e.g. mother, wife, etc.), hdwever, you advised me that a support letter written by each individual would be the best strateqy for time purposes.
5• QUESTION ONE: Do you believe you should-have interviewed any of the character witnesses in which you received support letters from for defense purposes? If not, please state your reason(s) for not interviewing each character witness who provided a support letter on my behalf:
QUESTION TWO: Do you believe you should had conducted an investiqation into my mental history, after discoverinq I had been admitted into two different mental h~alth faculties due to my severe mental defects? If not, please state your reason(s) for not conductinq an investiqation into my mental health history:
QUESTION THREE: Do you. believe that you should had requested the appointment of a mental health expert for evaluation purposes and defense purposes after learninq~ of my mental health hiStory through the support letters, jail doctors, and myself? if not, please state your reason(s) for not seeking and obtaininq a mental health expert for evaluation and/or defense purposes:
Please ,be advised that each of the above questions needs to be answered under oath, sworn to/by a fttitlARY PUB;LIC of the State of Texas. I sincerely THANK YOU for your assistance in answering these vital questions.
~mgh~ William Erickson. 3060 FM 3514 #1805402 Beaumont, Texas, 77705 6. CAUSE NO. 1286119-A
. _:.. (Applicant) § AUSTIN, TEXAS
APPLICANT'S MOTION TO REMAND PROCEEDINGS BACK TO TRIAL COURT
TO CONDUCT PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO V.A.C.C.P. ART. 11.07, §3(d)
NOW COMES, WILLIAM E. ERICKSON, applicant, proceeding pro I se in the above styled and-numbered cause, respectfully ~sks
this court to remand this habeas corpus case back to the trial
court to conduct a fact-finding hearing pursuant to V.A.C.C.P.
art. 11.07, §3(d), whereas, there are still controveried, previously
unresolved facts material to the legality of the applicant's
confinement, which requires such a hearing to resolve his claims
In support thereof, applicant would show the court the following:
on January 1~ 2015, raising the following claims of ineffective
a. Trial Counsel failed to object to inadmissible and prejudicial
1. b. Trial Counsel failed to preserve error by failing to object
c. Trial Counsel failed to objerit to Judge's predetermination
of app·l i cant's life sentence prior to punishment;
d. Trial Counsel failed to conduct an adequate investigation
into the facts of the case for guilt-innocence and/or punishment
e. Appellate Counsel failed ,. to file a Motion for New Trial raising
allegin3 there were no contraverted, previously unresolved facts
3. On February 15, 2015, the trial court, adopted the State's
Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and recommended
relief be denied, without conducting any fact finding procedures
4. pRIOR TO FILING APPLICANT'S APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS, APPLICANT PROVIDED HIS TRIAL ATTORNEY, MR. RICK GONZALEZ,
WITH QUESTIONS PRETAINING TO APPLICANT'S INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE
OF COUNSEL CLAIMS. However, counsel failed to answer any questions
2. 5. The Texas Court of Criminal App~als in THOMPSON V. STATE,
9 S.W.3d 808, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999), emphasived that a claim
of ineffective assistance of counsel must be supported by a record
containing direct evidence as to why counsel took the actions
or made the omissions relied upon as the basis for the claim(s). l -:..
6. While there may be some actions that unquestionably fall outside
the spectrum of objectively reasonable trial strategy, generally,
explaining his actions.;in order to overcome the presumption that
7. Due to applicant's indigent status and incarceration, he is unable to personally interview his trial and/or appe~late attorneys,
applicant have means of obtaining an attorney or investigator
8. In order of obtaining counsel's reasons for his actions and/or
omissions, applicant has to rely upon the trial court ordering
counsel to answer applicant's allegations of ineffective ?
assistance of counsel pursuant to V.A.C.C.P. art. 11.07, §3(d).
remand this case back to the trial court to conduct proceedin3s
pursuant to V.A.C.C.P. art. 11.07, §3(d), for the reasons stated
Executed on this •$;#/'Ch ----day of
I, WILLIAM E. ERICKSON, do declare under the penalty of perjury
that th~ facts stated herein my motion to remand is true and
correct pursuant to Tex.Civ.Prac.Rem. Code, §132.001 - §132.003. ·,&-h Executed on this ~!?rCJ.7 day of /1 , 2015. ------------------
Servic~ has been accomplished by sending a copy of this
instrument to the following address: Sharon Y. Chu (Asst.Dist.Attny.)
1201 Franklin St .
.Houston, Texas, 77002
4. \3 ) I
\ \ WILLIAM ERICKSON 3060 FM 3514 #1805402 BEAUMONT, TEXAS, 77705
MR. RICK GONZALEZ (Attny at Law) 2008 RAINBOW DR. HOUSTON, TEXAS, 77023
I am in process of conducting an investigation and evaluation of some potential claims to be pursued on an art. 11.07, Writ of Habeas Corpus, and I would like for you to answer the included questi6ns at your earliest convenience, or by the end of ~- i- 15 , if possible. Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
1/~f: f¥h/ WILLIAM ERICKSON
A. The Court of Appeals for the 14th District of T~xas held that you f~iled to preserve error, by failing to object to the trial court sentencing me in the absence of a complete, statutorily required PSI Report, whereas, the report excluded: {1) a proposed client supervision plan, {2) a drug and alcohol evaluation, and {3) a psychological evaluation. See: Cause ~o. 14-12-00767-CR. See also: (RR~I, p.S)
1. QUESTION ONE: Do you believe the PSI Report in my case should had contained a PROPOSED CLIENT SUPERVISION PLAN for the iudge's review/determination of sentence? If not, please state your reason{s):
QUESTION TWO: In retrospect, do you believe you should had obiected to the trial court sentencing me in the absence of a Proposed Client Supervision Plan in the PSI Report? If not, please state your reason(s) for not obiecting:
QUESTION THREE: Do you believe the PSI Report in mi case should had contained a DRUG and ALCOHOL EVALUATION Report for the judge's review/determination of sentence, since evidence existed that suggested drugs and/or alcohol may could had contributed to the commission of the alleged offense? If not, please state your reason(s):
QUESTION .FOUR: In retrospect, do you believe you should had objected to the trial court sentencing me in the absence of a Drug and Alcohol Evaluation Report in the PSI Report based on the facts of this case? If not, please state your reason(s) for not objecting:
2. QUESTION FIVE: Do you believe the PSI Report 1n my case should had contained a PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION Report for the judge's review/determination of sentence? If not, please state your rea~on{s):
QUESTION SIX: In retrospect, do you believe you should had objected to the trial court sentencing me in the absence of a Psychological Evaluation Report in the PSI report, since evidence existed that I was diagnosed with ~1). Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, ~2). Bipolar-Disorder, and (3). Panic Disorder with Agoraphobia? If not, please state your reason{s) for not objecting:
B. During the punishment phase, (PSI Hearing), the State called the following witnesses to provide Victim Impact Statements prior to the Co~rt's sentence or pronouncement of sentence: 1. RONALD AINSWORTH, 2. ELIZABETH AINSWORTH, and 3. NICOLE HIDALGO
sea: PSI Hearing, dated 8-22-12
QUESTION ONE: Do you believe the Trial Court erred by allowing these witnesses to provide their Victim Impact Statements in testimony form, PRIOR to the Court's sentence of me or pronouncement of sentence? If not, please state your reason(s):
3 QUESTION TWO: In retrospect, do you believe you should had obj~cted to the State's presentment of these witnesses Victim Impact Statements prior to the Court sentencing me, or pronouncing sentence? If not, please state your reason~s) for not objecting:
C. The record reveals that during the admittance of my guilty plea before the Honorable Randy Roll, on April 30, 2012, a "LIFE SENTENCE," with the initials R.R., was written on the guilty plea form. The Court of Appeals for the 14th District of Texas, in addressing this issue, held this issue was not objected too rrior to sentencing, thus, was waived for appellate review. See: (C.O.A. No. 14-12-00767-CR)
QUESTION ONE: Do you believe th~ Honorable Randy Roll erred by making a notation of a predetermined "LIFE" sentence before a punishment hearing was conducted and evidence determined? If not, please state your reason~s):
QUESTION TWO: Do you believe that the hand writing of the "LIFE SENTENCE'' notation matches the Hon. Randy Roll's signature on the same ~ocument? If not, please state your reason~s):
4 QUESTION THREE: In retrospect, do you believe you should had objected to the Honorable judge, Randy Roll, making a predetermined.:~,~
sentence of "LIFE" before the punishment hearing was conducted and evidence reviewed? If not, please state your reason(s) for not objecting:
D. Prior to advising me to plead guilty to the offense of murder, you were aware that each alleged eyewitness to the alleged offense provided police with a different version of events, and one witness, EUGENE HOLLAND,. told police I shot Mr. Ricardo Hidalgo after Ricardo reached for his gun inside a table drawer.
QUESTION ONE: Do you believe I should had been made aware of the witnesses conflicting statements made to police prior to advising me to plead guilty to the murder charge and hope for mercy of the court? If not, please state your reasons I was not made aware of these exculpatory facts:
QUESTION TWO~ Do you believe each eyewitness to the alleged offense should had been independently investiqated and interviewed for defense purposes? If not, please state your reason(s) for not conducting an independent investigation and interview of each alleqed eyewitness to the alleged offense:
E. Prior to the punishment phase, I requested several character witnesses to speak on mv behalf (e.g. mother, wife, etc.), however, you advised me that a support letter written by each individual would be the best strategy for time purposes.
5. QUESTION ONE: Do you believe you should have interviewed any of the character witnesses in which you received support letters from for defense purposes? If not, please state your reason(s) for not interviewing each character witness who provided a support letter on my behalf:
QUESTION TWO: Do you believe you should had conducted an investiqation into my mental history, after discoverinq I had been admitted into two different mental health faculties due to my severe mental defects? If not, please state your reason(s) for not conductinq an investiqation into my mental health history:
QUESTION THREE: Do you. believe that you should had re~uested
the appointment of a mental health expert for evaluati~n purposes and defense purposes after learn.inq. of my mental health history through the support letters, jail doctors, and myself? if not, please state your reason(s) for not seeking and obtaininq a mental health expert for evaluation and/or defense purposes:
Please,be advised that each of the above questions needs to be answered under oath, sworn to/by a JltitlARY. PUBLIC of the State of Texas. I sincerely THANK YOU for your assistance in answering these vital questions.
JjJ1/Iu#( r ~ giLt d~ William Erickson. .
3060 FM 3514 #1805402 Beaumont, Texas, 77705 6.