( ' ·. No. _______________________
IN THE,,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
IN RE CANDY HILL HUGHES
MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS (PRO SE) TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: Comes now Candy Hill Hughes, who files this motion and will show the following: (1) That Mr.Hughes request to file a writ of mandamus in this court. (2) That this court ~rant Mr.Hughes motion for leave in order for him to file his wr~t of mandum~s.
Wherefore Mr.Hughes prays that this Honorable Court Grants his motion for l~ave of court to file a writ of mandamus. Respectfully· submitted: Candy Hill Hughes#1596685 Hughes Unit RT.2 Box 4400 Gatesville,Texas.76597 U.S.A·
c~~Lu~\b DATE: 12-i-2015 \L-'15- 2-0\S t .\\.\\
RECEIVED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
DEC 10 2015 . ;
Abel Acosta, Clerk CAUSE NO. 1169973-B
Candy Hill Hughes IN THE 230TH JUDICIAL TDCJ-ID# 1596685 RELATOR v. DISTRICT COURT OF Chris Daniel COUNTY DISTRICT CLERK: IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, RESPONDENT HARRIS COUNTY ,TEXAS
A. PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: Comes now,Candy Hill Hughes ,Relator, pro se in the above- styled and numbered cause of action and files this Original Application For Writ of Mandamus, pursuant to Article 11.07 Sec. 3(c) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, and would show the Court the following: 1. B. RELATOR 1.01 Candy Hill Hughes ,TDCJ# 1596685 is an offender incarcerated in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and is appearing pro se, who can be located at Hughes Unit Rt.2 Box 4400 Gatesville,Texas.76597. 1. 02 Relator has exhausted his remedies and has no other :::;: ,:; adequate rem~dy at law. 1.03 The act sought to be compelled is ministerial, not discretionary in nature. TCCP Art. 11.07 Sec. 3(c) requires Respondent to immediately transmit to the Court of Criminal Appeals a copy of the application for writ of habeas corpus any answers filed, and a certificate reciting the date upon which that finding was made, if the convicting court decides that there are no issues to be resolved. No copy of the
application for writ of habeas corpus, any answers filed, and
1 a certificate reciting the date upon which that finding was made have been transmitted to the Court of Criminal Appeals. Had such documents been transmitted to the Court of Criminal Appeals by Respondent as required by statute, Relator would have received notice from the Court of Criminal Appeals. 2. C. RESPONDENT 2.01 Respond~nt,Chris Daniel ,in his capacity as District Clerk of Harris County,Texas has a ministerial duty to receive and file all papers in a criminal proceeding, and perform all other duties imposed on the clerk by law pursuant to TCCP Art.2.21, and is responsible under TCCP 11.07 Sec. 3(c) to immediately transmit to the Court of Criminal Appeals a copy of the application for writ of habeas corpus, any answers filed, and a certificate reciting the date upon which that finding was made if the convicting court decides that there are no issues to be resolved.Chris Daniel District Clerk, Harris County may be served at his place of business at1201 Franklin Street (77210) Houston,TX.:_:_:__:_ 3. D. VIOLATION OF ART. 11.07 OF THE TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 3.01 The Respondent violated Article 11.07 Sec. 3(c) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure by failing to provide a copy of the 2DD1~2D
application for writ of habeas corpus, any answers filed, and a certificate reciting the date upon which that finding was made to the Court of Criminal Appeals within the time prescribed by law and within a reasonable time from the date on which the documents were requested to be transmitted.
3.02 Requests for the transmittal of the application for writ of ~E~~s
habeas corpus, any answers filed, and a certificate reciting the date upon which that finding was made by Relator to-Chris Daniel District Clerk, Harris County, by mailed letters dated 11-13-2015
2 . ' 11-21-15 ;pursuant to Art. 11.07 Sec. 3(c) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. True and accurate copies of the above letters are
attached hereto as Exhibit"A" through "B" and are also
incorporated by reference herein for all purposes.
To date, Relator has recei~ed no response from Respondent
regarding Relator's request for transmittal of a copy of the
application for writ of habeas corpus, any answers filed, and a certificate reciting the date upon which that finding was made
to the Court of Criminal Appeals. 3.04 As is clear from Relator's letters, Relator has repeatedly put
Respondent on notice that Relator seeks the transmittal of a
copy of the application for writ of habeas corpus, any answers
filed, and a certificate reciting the date upon which that findin
was made to the Court of Criminal Appeals and that such records
are required by the Court of Criminal Appeals to act on Relators
writ of habeas corpus. Relator has gone well beyond any ~~Cii
re~uirement or obligations imposed upon him by the Texas Code of
Criminal Procedure~ lnt~ofulri~tSto.Rilahor's efforts, Respondent
has wholly failed to comply with the Texas Code of Criminal
Procedure, Art. 11.07 Sec. 3(c), is acting in bad faith, and has
also failed to afford Relator the professional and common ~0
courtesy of any written responses to his correspondence and~~~--
requests.
:3.05 Art. 11.07 Sec. 3(c) clearly states that "UiJf the convicting
court decides that there are no such issues, the clerk shall
immediately transmit to the Court of Criminal Appeals a copy of
the application, any answers filed, and a certicate reciting
the date upon which that finding was made. Failure of the court
to act within the allowed 20 days shall constitute such a finding
3 T Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 11.07 Sec. 3(c). a Respondent is in violation of this procedure, ministerial
duties, and thus the laws of this state.
4. D. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Relator,Candy Hill Hughes pro se, respectfully requests a finding that the Respondent ,
did not transmit documents to the Court of Criminal Appeals
within a reasonable time after the date they were requested
and that Relator brought this litigation in good faith and has
substantially prevailed. Relator prays for an Order directing
Respondent to transmit copy of the application for writ of habeas corpus, any answers filed, and a certificate reciting
the date upon which that finding was made to the Court of Criminal Appeals as directed in Art. 11.07 Sec. 3(c) of the
Texas Code of Criminal Procedure and as requested in Relators
letters( Exhibit A-B). Respectfully Submitted, By: Candy Hill Hughes RELATOR
UNSWORN DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
I swear under the United States Constitution that the foregoing is true and correct: Executed on this~12-j-2015 \'L-<"6- ZD\S"" c..\t-H- Candy Hill Hughes Hughes Unit Rt. 2 Box 4400 Gatesville,Texas.76597 u.s.A CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true copy of the above Application For Writ Of Mandamus was served on the Clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals by placing a copy in the U.S.mail on this the ~d day ofDecember 2015.
(M.)t'! ft~ll ~ RELATOR
4 ·.~'. HUGHES UNiT RT.2 BOX 4400 GATESVILLE,TEX~S.76597
HARRIS.COUNTY DISTRICT CLERK 1201 FRANKLIN St. P.O.BOX 4651 HOUSTON,TEXAS~77210-4651
NOVEMBER ~3,2015
RE: CAUSE No.1l69973-B (ErParte Candy Hill Hughes)
Dear,Clerk This is to place you under· notice that I have filed· an application for writ of habeas corpus in.the· above ' enti-tled - '
and numbered cause. It has been over (2) years since the date in which I fiU~athe application. Please forward my appli~a tion
for writ of habeas corpus to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. My information is ~s follows. Thank you for your time in advance to tpis matter.
Best Regards :_*·~tlQb **CJ*tNtt\\\~ (PRO SE)
. Exhibit A CANDY H. HUGHES HUGHES UNIT RT.2 BOX 4400 GATESVILLE,TEXAS.76597
HARRIS COUNTY DISTRICT CLERK 1201 FRANKLIN St. P.O.BOX 4651 HOUSTON,TEXAS.77210-4651
NOVEMBER 21,2015 RE: CAUSE No.1169973-B (Ex Parte Candy gfll Hughes) Dear,Clerk This letter is being written to inform you that this is my second request in having you forward my application for writ of habeas corpus to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals please. My information is as follows. Thank you for your time in advance to this matter.
Best Regards: :::t:\Sl~
CAuWtt~\l~ (PRO SE)
Exhibit B Cause No. 1:169973-8
EX PARTE § IN THE 2301h DISTRICT COURT
§ OF
CANDY HILL HUGHES, .• § ' HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS Applicant
STATE'S ORIGINAL ANSWER
The $tate i' ........ of Texas, by and through - ·' . its Assistant District Attorney for ,'I,
Harris County, files this, its original answer in the above-captioned cause,
having been serve·d with the original application for writ of habeas corpus,
pursuant to TEx. CoDE CRIM. PRoc. art. '11.07 (West 2013), and would show
the following:
I.
@applicant is confined pursuant to the judgment and sentence of
the 2301h District Court of Harris County, Texas, in cause number 1169973
(the primary case), where a jury convicted the applicant on August 17,
2009 of the felony offense of murder.@ applicant also pled true to two
enhancement paragraphs, which the jury found true. The court assessed
punishment at confinement for sixty (60) years in the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice- Institutional Division (TDCJ- ID). • "
The First Court of Appeals issued an opinion affirming the applicant's
conviction on October 11, 2012: Wall v. State, No. 01-11-00600-CR, 2012
WL 4857360 (Tex. App. -Houston [1st Dist.] October 11, 2012, pet. ref' d.).
II.
The State denies the fc;ctual allegations made in the instant
application, except those supported by official court records, and offers the
following additional reply:
Reply to the Applicant's First, Second, Third,
Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Grounds for Relief
In his first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth grounds for relief, the
applicant claims that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at
trial. Specifically, the applicant claims trial counsel:
1. did not give the applicant a copy of his case file;
2. created a conflict of interest by agreeing to not give the applicant a
copy of the offense report;
3. failed to subpoena Wesley Brown as a witness;
4. failed to make an opening statement;
5. failed to subpoena an expert to refute the medical examiner's
testimony regarding the complainant's autopsy;
6. failed to invoke TEX. R. EVID. 614 ("the Rule") at trial; and
2 .. '
7. was generally ineffective.
·Writ Application at 6-10, 6. 1
The United States Supreme Court held in Strickland v. Washington,
466 U.S. 668, 686 (1984), that the benchmark for judging any claim of
ineffective assistance of counsel is whether counsel's conduct so
undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial
cannot be relied upon as having produced a just result. The Court in
Strickland set forth a two-part standard, which has been adopted by Texas.
See Hernandez v. State, 726 S.W.2d 53, 57 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986). First,
the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that
counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of
reasonableness. Mitchell v. State, 68 S.W.3d 640, 642 (Tex.· Crim. App.
2002); Narvaiz v. State, 840 S.W.2d 415, 434 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992)
(citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. at 688)~ Reasonably eff~ctive
assistance of counsel does not require error-free counsel, or counsel
whose competency is judged by hindsight. Mercado v. State, 615 S.W.2d
225, 228 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981 ). Second, there must be a reasonable
probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the
1 The pages in the writ application appear to be duplicates, in no particular order, after pages 6-10. The State is listing the pages as they are numbered in the application; hence, the second page 6 is the second page 6 as one proceeds through the pages of the writ application.
3· ' . proceeding would have been different. /d. A "reasonable probability" is "a
probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome." /d.
Article I, Section 10 of the Texas Constitution also requires that a
criminal defendant receive effective assistance of counsel. However, the
Texas constitutional provision does not create a standard that is more
protective of a defendant's rights than that established in Strickland. Black
v. State, 816 S.W.2d 350, 357 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (citing Hernandez v.
State, 726 S.W.2d 53 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986)). Therefore, an analysis of
the effectiveness of the applicant's trial counsel in the primary case
pursuant to the Strickland standard satisfies both the federal and state
constitutional requirements.
The court will not use hindsight to second-guess a tactical decision
made by trial counsel, nor will the fact that another attorney might have
pursued a different course support a finding of ineffectiveness. Solis v.
State, 792 S.W.2d 95, 100 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990); Blatt v. State, 588
S.W.2d 588, 592 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). When evaluating an ineffective
assistance claim, the reviewing court looks at the totality of the
representation and the particular circumstances of the case. See
Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). In
reviewing counsel's performance, the court indulges a strong presumption
4 ' '
that he acted within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.
/d.
Failure to Make an Opening Statement
In his third ground for relief, the applicant alleges ineffectiveness for
trial counsel's failure to make an opening statement" at trial. Writ
Application at 8.
The record is clear that trial counsel declined to make an opening
statement. (3 R. R. 7). However, few matters during a criminal trial could
be more imbued with strategic implications than the exercise of this option. . ! .
Calderon v. State, 950 S. W.2d 121, 127 {Tex. App. - El Paso, 1997): An
opening statement can give the State a preview of the defense strategy;
therefore, trial counsel may make a tactical decision not to present on, and
such a decision does not amount to ineffective assistance. For this reason,
the applicant's third ground for relief is without merit, and should be denied.
Alleged Failure to Subpoena Witnesses
The applicant alleges in his second ground for relief that counsel
failed to subpoena defense witnesses in the instant case. Writ Application
at 7. Specifically, the applicant alleges that trial counsel failed to call
witness Wesley Brown to testify at trial. /d. The applicant also alleges
5 counsel failed to subpoena an expert witness to refute the medical
examiner's testimony. /d.
When challenging trial counsel's failure to call a witness, "the
applicant must show that [the witness] had been available to testify and that
his testimony would have been of some benefit to the defense." Ex parte
White, 160 S.W.3d 46, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). The applicant fails to
show that either of his proposed witnesses would have been available, or
that either would have provided testimony that would have been of some
benefit to his defense. The applicant merely makes a conclusory statement
as to what testimony Wesley Brown would have given, and does not offer
even a conclusory statement as to what, if any, testimony an expert would
offer that would have helped his defense. Writ Application at 7. Therefore,
the applicant fails to meet his burden, and his second ground for relief
should be denied.
Failure to Invoke tfthe Rule"
The applicant alleges, in his fifth ground for relief, that counsel failed
. to invoke Texas Rule of Evidence 614 (also known as "the Rule") before
trial testimony began, resulting in defense witnesses being present in the
courtroom during testimony. Writ Application at 10. The applicant goes on
6 to allege that this resulted in defense witnesses hearing each others'
testimony, thereby bolstering their own testimony. /d.
The applicant is mistaken. After the applicant was arraigned, but
before testimony began, the trial court asked whether either side wished to
invoke the Rule. (3 R.R. 4). Immediately, counsel repiied, "Yes, Your
Honor." (3 R.R. 4). Thereafter, the trial court admonished witnesses, as
they were sworn in, that the Rule had been invoked, and explained how
that affected the witnesses. (3 R.R. 4; 5 R.R. 3).
The applicant fails to allege sufficient facts which, if true, would entitle
him to relief. Ex parte Maldonado, 688 S.W.2d 114, 116 (Tex. Crim. App.
1985). Therefore, the applicant's fifth ground is without merit and should
be denied.
Genera/Ineffectiveness
In his sixth ground for relief, the applicant alleges that trial counsel
was generally ineffective overall. Writ Application at 6. 2
First and foremost, in habeas proceedings, the applicant must allege
sufficient facts, which if true, would entitle him "to relief. Ex parte
Maldonado, 688 S.W.2d 114, 116 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985). Even if sworn
to, an applicant's allegations are insufficient to overcome the State's 2 The pages in the writ application appear to be duplicates, in no particular order, after pages 6-10. The State is listing the pages as they are numbered in the application; hence, this page 6 is the second page 6 as one proceeds through the pages of the writ application
7 denials. Ex parte Empey, 757 S.W.2d 771, 775 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988).
The burden of proof is on the applicant, and the standard of proof is by a
preponderance of the evidence. Ex parte Adams, 768 S.W.2d 281 (Tex.
Grim. App. 1988).
The applicant fails to clearly articulate any legal basis for relief in his
sixth ground for relief, and therefore fails to allege sufficient facts, which, if
true, would entitle him to relief. Ex parte Maldonado, 688 S.W.2d at 116.
The applicant merely expresses his feeling that his attorney's
"representation as a whole fell below and accepted standard of
reasonableness" without providing any factual or legal support for his
allegations. Writ Application at 6. Therefore, the applicant's sixth ground
for relief is without merit, and should be denied.
Conflict of Interest
The applicant alleges in his first and seventh grounds for relief that
counsel faced a conflict of interest which rendered counsel ineffective at
trial and on appeal. Writ Application at 6. Specifically, the applicant
alleges in his first ground for relief that trial counsel's agreement with the
State to not release copies of the offense report to the applicant was a
conflict of interest. /d.
8 Ineffective assistance of counsel may result from an attorney's
conflict of interest. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 692. "An actual conflict of
interest exists if counsel is required to make a choice between advancing
his client's interest in a fair trial or advancing other interests (perhaps his
own) to the detriment of his client's interest." Ex parte Morrow, 952 S.W.2d
530, 538 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (citing James v. State, 763 S.W.2d 776,
779 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989)). However, in order for an applicant to
demonstrate a violation of his right to reasonably effective assistance of
counsel based on a conflict of interest, the applicant "must show (1) that
defense counsel was actively representing conflicting interests, and (2) that
the conflict had an adverse effect on specific instances of counsel's
performance." /d. (citing Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (1980)).
Furthermore,_ in a case where counsel is appointed (as in this case), a
defendant has the responsibility to bring to the court's attention any basis
on which he believes an appointed counsel should be replaced. Malcom v.
State, 628 S.W.2d 790, 791 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982)(citing Webb v. State,
533 S.W.2d 780, 784 n. 3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976)). In that manner, the trial
court can be afforded the opportunity to decide if the defendant can carry
the burden of proving that he is entitled to a change of counsel. /d.
9 The applicant fails to show, nor can the State find any evidence that
the applicant brought the matter to the court's attention. Furthermore, the
applicant fails to demonstrate any actual conflict of interest existed between
the applicant and counsel. Finally, the applicant fails to demonstrate that
any alleged conflict in the primary case had any adverse effect on specific
instances of counsel's performance. The applicant cannot show that he
was denied the effective assistance of counsel due to any conflict of
interest. Therefore, this aspect of the applicant's first and seventh grounds
for relief are without merit and should be denied.
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel on Appeal
At the conclusion of the applicant's trial, trial counsel J .. Sidney
Crowley continued to represent the applicant on appeal. See State's Writ
Exhibit A, Notice of Appeal in cause number 1169973. The applicant's
seventh ground for relief alleges that Crowley's appointment as both trial
and appellate attorney rendered him ineffective, as evidenced by Crowley's
failure to raise ineffective assistance of counsel claims against himself.
Writ Application at 10. Therefore, it appears the applicant's true claim is
ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failure to raise ineffective
assistance of trial counsel as a point of error on appeal.
10 It is established that to support an applicant's allegation that appellate
counsel was ineffective for failing to assign a particular point of appeal, the
applicant must meet the standard set out in Strickland. Smith v. Robbins,
528 U.S. 259 (2000); Smith v. Murray, 477 U.S. 527 (1986); Ex parte
Butler, 884 S.W.2d 782, 783-784 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994). The Texas Court
of Criminal Appeals employs the same analysis for ineffective assistance of
counsel on direct appeal as it applies to trial counsel: (1) "determine
whether counsel's performance was deficient," and (2), if the performance
was deficient, "determine whether there is a reasonable probability the
results would have been different but for counsel's deficient performance."
Ex parte Jarrett, 891 S.W.2d 935, 938 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994 ), overruled on
other grounds; Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).
Therefore, a showing of both deficient performance and prejudice is
required. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687.
An attorney "need not advance every argument, regardless of merit,
urged by the appellant" and to do so would disserve the very goal of
vigorous and effective appellate advocacy. Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387
(1985) (emphasis in original). An applicant must demonstrate that
counsel's decision not to raise a particular point of error was objectively
unreasonable and that there is a reasonable probability that, but for
11 I. . '
counsel's failure to raise that issue, the applicant would have prevailed on
appeal. Robbins, 528 U.S. at 285-86 (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687-91,
694 ). "A reasonable probability· is a probability sufficient to undermine
confidence in the outcome" of the proceeding. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694.
Nevertheless, and without waiving any of the foregoing arguments or
authorities, the resolution of the claims requires information concerning trial
counsel's strategic decisions, and confidential communications with the
applicant. Therefore, the State believes that further factual investigation is
necessary to determine the merit, if any, to the applicant's ineffective
assistance claim.
Reply to the Applicant's Eighth Ground for Relief
In his eighth ground for relief, the applicant claims the trial court erred
by appointing trial counsel as appellate counseL Writ Application at 7. 3
The applicant filed notice of appeal on August 17, 2009, in which he
also notified the court that he was indigent, and wished the trial court to
appoint appellate counsel. See State's Writ Exhibit A, Notice of Appeal in
cause number 1169973. In this same notice, counsel noted that he would
continue to represent the applicant on appeal. /d. The applicant signed
this notice, although he had the option to ask counsel to withdraw from his 3 The pages in the writ application appear to be duplicates, in no particular order, after pages 6-10. The State is listing the pages as they are numbered in the application; hence, this page 7 is the second page 7 as one proceeds through the pages of the writ application.
12 . . case, and accept a different appellate attorney from the trial court. The
applicant's signature on a form requesting trial counsel to remain on as
appellate counsel is prima facie· evidence that the trial court did not err in
allowing the applicant his choice in appellate counsel.
Moreover, the purpose of habeas corpus is to ·determine the
lawfulness of confinement and not to serve as the substitute for an appeal.
Ex parte Clore, 690 S.W.2d 899, 900 {Tex. Crim. App. 1985); Ex parte
McGowan, 645 S.W.2d 286, 288 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983). Habeas corpus
will lie only to review jurisdictional defects or denials of fundamental or
constitutional rights. Ex parte Watson, 601 S.W.2d 350 {Tex Crim App
1980). The applicant's claims are not of a jurisdictional defect nature, nor
are these claims regarding a fundamental or constitutional right.
It is well settled that a writ of habeas corpus should not be used to
litigate matters which should have been raised on direct appeal. Ex parte
Banks, 769 S.W.2d 539 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989); Ex parte Townsend, 137
S.W.3d 79 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). Generally, factual and evidentiary
challenges are "record claims" and should be litigated on direct appeal. Ex
parte Gardner, 959 S.W.2d 189, 198-200 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (op.
reh'g). There is no reason why the applicant could not have made these
complaints in the trial court, and on direct appeal. However, he failed to do
13 ·so. They are therefore waived, and he is now procedurally barred from
further litigation of these issues. See id.
Therefore, applicant has failed in his burden of proof at habeas, and
even assuming he meets that burden, applicant's claim is not cognizable
because he should have raised it on direct appeal. The applicant's eighth
ground for relief is without merit and should be denied.
Ill.
The State respectfully requests that the trial court designate the issue
of ineffective assistance of counsel as an issue that still needs to be
addressed. The State respectfully requests that the trial court order J.
Sidney Crowley to file an affidavit addressing the instant allegations of
ineffective assistance of counsel at trial.
14 .~ ..... .'
IV.
Service has been accomplished by sending a copy of this instrument to the
following address:
Candy Hill Hughes #1596685 -Telford Unit 3899 State Highway 98 New Boston, TX 75570
SIGNED this 25th day of November, 2013.
Respectfully submitted,
. Flores Assistant District Attorney Harris County, Texas 1201 Franklin,·6th Floor Houston, Texas 77002 (713) 755-6657 (713) 755-5240 (fax) Texas Bar ID #24059760
15 Cause No. J/{eqct7 3 THE STATE OF TEXAS
{),170)1 )/; (/ 1-fu~ ~AooA/ ______
Z-3rfn+ District Court I County Criminal Court at Lalv No. _ _ __
Harris County, Texas
NOTICE OF APPEAL
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COUKf:
On aeiu5T 12, 'ZCO 0 (date), the defendant in the above numbered and styled cause gives NOTICE. APPEAL of his conviction.
The undersigned attorney (check appropriate box): o MOVES to withdraw. ~VISES the court that he will CONTINUE to represent the defendan
Date
Attorney (Printefllame) I 05{70200 State Bar Number AUG 1 7 2009 f 40 1-.pU{SJana... Address Time: ----:-:---c-:-;:;--.,....-;:------ H~rris c0:..m~.y. Tr~Y,i::lS '"], 2:,- Z:?S- 59ff)1 By Deputy Telephone Number The defendant (check all that apply): .o---R:E"PRESENTS to the court that he is presently INDIGENT and ASKS the court to immediately APPOINT appellate counsel to represent him. ~s the Court to ORDER that a free record be provided to him. o ASKS the court to set BAIL.
Accordingly, Appellant ASKS the Court to conduct a hearing, make findings, and enter an Order Granting the requested relief.
Defendant ·(Signature) Defendant' rinted name
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME ON ---r1~rA~U"""G"T--1-r7~2_0_09________ By Deputy District Clerk of Harris County, Texas ----rt-=-rtl-.----cYf-------------- .. STATE'S EXHIBIT Page I of2 A l ORDER
·· o~ ·~It?! o9 the Court conducted a hearing and FINDS that defendant I appellant r 1 0 IS NOT indigent at this time. ~ IS indigent for the purpose of ~employing counsel 0 paying for a clerk's and court reporter's record. ~mploying counsel or paying for a clerk's and court reporter's record. The Court ORDERS that o Counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED /DENIED. o Defendant I appellant's motion (to be found indigent) is DENIED. o Defendant's I appellant's motion is GRANTED and 0 (attorney's name & bar card number) is APPOINTED to represent defendant I appellant on appeal. 0 The COURT REPORTER is ORDERED to prepare and file the reporter's record without charge to defendant I appellant. BAIL IS:
o To CONTINUE as presently set. o DENIED and is SET at NO BOND. (Felony,Only)
DATE SIGNED: ----'6~/_.,J.....:.'D+/_C)_a.r....J_ _ __ I I
. '
! •
'·
Page 2 of2 • . _;~~
............\ld'U ..." ' ;•.... .· '*ftw, I ·~ ,..... ~. "'p;.RR!s ......... l A... c ......~"-······· . 0. ... . . I~ .l" . ..., 0~ ..~ f IE .0 ::J !/ { : { . \ \ ':A. ·~ !: u l\ . \I ...(. . \Y,:\ ;"-f: \~ .· . .. . ' 'f:rnsa \ ....Q,~'·· &'!. .,.,.. "'· .....__........·.,J>,... . c::)/,:0 I -
..... ...0,f'. " IWMeo~~RI& "'·· {.r ,,.,.~..,· .................... #
!tChrte Da"lal, Dl&trlol Clerk of Harris eeun)y, l'exsa.~ certify that mlela atrue and correct copy of t11e oMglnal rocord nled and or reoordod In my omce, elec!tonlcally or hard copy, aell appeal'& on IIIIa data. Wltn888 my official hal)d on«Ue9f of ofDD04hle /
/