Garcia, Carlos Santana
This text of Garcia, Carlos Santana (Garcia, Carlos Santana) 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-89,713-01
EX PARTE CARLOS SANTANA GARCIA, Applicant
ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS CAUSE NO. A-03-1086-S-W-1 IN THE 51ST DISTRICT COURT FROM TOM GREEN 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 convicted of aggravated sexual
assault and sentenced to thirty years’ imprisonment. The Third Court of Appeals affirmed his
conviction. Garcia v. State, No. 03-05-00278-CR (Tex. App.—Austin July 7, 2006) (not designated
for publication).
In thirteen grounds, Applicant contends that trial counsel was ineffective. The trial court
recommended that we dismiss this application as noncompliant because Applicant failed to follow
instruction seven on the 11.07 form and made legal arguments in the space for six of his grounds on 2
the 11.07 form. If an applicant does make legal arguments, neither instruction seven nor Rule of
Appellate Procedure 73.1(c) requires him to make legal arguments in a separate memorandum. An
application filed under Article 11.07 of the Code of Criminal Procedure will not be dismissed as
noncompliant solely because an applicant makes legal arguments in the space for his grounds on the
11.07 form.
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
may order trial counsel to file a second response to Applicant’s ineffective assistance of counsel
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 further findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether trial
counsel’s conduct was deficient and Applicant was prejudiced. 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 claims 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 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: May 8, 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
Garcia, Carlos Santana, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garcia-carlos-santana-texcrimapp-2019.