Fant-Clark, Joshua Anderson
This text of Fant-Clark, Joshua Anderson (Fant-Clark, Joshua Anderson) 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-89,097-01
EX PARTE JOSHUA ANDERSON FANT-CLARK, Applicant
ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS CAUSE NO. 18368A IN THE 21ST DISTRICT COURT FROM WASHINGTON 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 pleaded guilty and was convicted
of robbery and sentenced to seventeen years’ imprisonment. He did not appeal his conviction.
Applicant contends that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance because he coerced
Applicant into pleading guilty by telling him that he would be severely punished if he did not accept
the State’s plea offer and by telling him that he could not do an open plea to the judge. The State
contends that Applicant was indicted for aggravated robbery and allowed to plead guilty to robbery,
but the habeas record forwarded to this Court reflects that Applicant waived the indictment and was 2
charged by complaint and information with a simple robbery.
On November 7, 2018, this Court remanded this application for an affidavit from counsel and
findings from the trial court. We received a supplemental record on February 4, 2019. The
supplemental record does not support all of the trial court’s findings and recommendation.
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 file a supplemental response stating what he believed to be the
aggravating factor in the allegation of robbery. 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 Applicant at the hearing. TEX . CODE CRIM . PROC. art. 26.04.
The trial court shall make supplemental findings of fact regarding what, specifically, was the
factor which raised the offense from the robbery alleged in the complaint to aggravated robbery. The
trial court shall supplement the record with any documents supporting an aggravated robbery charge
in this cause. 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 3
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: February 27, 2019 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
Fant-Clark, Joshua Anderson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fant-clark-joshua-anderson-texcrimapp-2019.