Jimenez, Ex Parte Rosa Estela Olvera

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedNovember 2, 2011
DocketAP-76,669
StatusPublished

This text of Jimenez, Ex Parte Rosa Estela Olvera (Jimenez, Ex Parte Rosa Estela Olvera) 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.

Bluebook
Jimenez, Ex Parte Rosa Estela Olvera, (Tex. 2011).

Opinion



IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS



NO. AP-76,669
EX PARTE ROSA ESTELA OLVERA JIMENEZ, Applicant


ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. D-1-DC-04-904165 IN THE 299TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R



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 murder and injury to a child and sentenced to imprisonment for seventy-five and ninety-nine years, respectively. The Third Court of Appeals affirmed her convictions. Jimenez v. State, No. 03-05-00633-CR (Tex. App.-Austin Aug. 31, 2007, pet. ref'd).

Applicant contends, among other things, that she was denied due process and the effective assistance of counsel. Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 105 S. Ct. 1087, 84 L. Ed. 2d 53 (1985); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984). We order that this application be filed and set for submission to determine whether this Court should review Applicant's due process claim for the first time in an application for a writ of habeas corpus and whether Applicant was denied due process under Ake. This application is also filed and set to determine whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by: (1) hiring Dr. Ira Kanfer as an expert; (2) not hiring qualified experts; (3) not making an adequate written request for expert assistance; and (4) not objecting and requesting a mistrial or continuance in response to Dr. Kanfer's conduct. The parties shall brief these issues.

It appears that Applicant is represented by counsel. If that is not correct, the trial court shall determine whether Applicant is indigent. If Applicant is indigent and desires to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an attorney to represent her. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 26.04. The trial court shall send to this Court, within 60 days of the date of this order, a supplemental transcript containing: a confirmation that Applicant is represented by counsel; the order appointing counsel; or a statement that Applicant is not indigent. All briefs shall be filed with this Court within 90 days of the date of this order.

Filed: November 2, 2011

Do not publish

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Strickland v. Washington
466 U.S. 668 (Supreme Court, 1984)
Ake v. Oklahoma
470 U.S. 68 (Supreme Court, 1985)
Ex Parte Young
418 S.W.2d 824 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Jimenez, Ex Parte Rosa Estela Olvera, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jimenez-ex-parte-rosa-estela-olvera-texcrimapp-2011.