Mirola, Jesus
This text of Mirola, Jesus (Mirola, Jesus) 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-86,657-02
EX PARTE JESUS MIROLA, Applicant
ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS CAUSE NO. F46009B IN THE 413TH DISTRICT COURT FROM JOHNSON 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).
In a single indictment, Applicant was charged with two counts of indecency with a child by
contact and one count of indecency with a child by exposure. Under a plea agreement, he pled guilty
to one count of indecency by contact and one count of indecency by exposure for deferred-
adjudication probations; the State abandoned the other count of indecency by contact. The State later
alleged that Applicant violated the deferred-probations. After a contested revocation hearing, the trial 2
court revoked the deferred probations, and it assessed a twenty-year sentence for the indecency by
contact offense and a ten-year sentence—probated for ten years—for the indecency by exposure
offense. In this habeas application, Applicant alleges that his guilty pleas were involuntary due to
the ineffective assistance of his trial counsel and that his appellate counsel provided ineffective
assistance. Applicant fails to show entitlement to habeas relief.
Applicant’s habeas challenge to the probated sentence for indecency by exposure is dismissed
because “an applicant must file an application for writ of habeas corpus under Texas Code of
Criminal Procedure 11.072 in the trial court in which community supervision was imposed in order
to attack a judgment of conviction ordering community supervision.” Ex parte Hiracheta, 307
S.W.3d 323, 325 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). Applicant’s habeas challenge to the to the final conviction
for indecency by contact lacks merit and is denied.
Filed: August 21, 2019 Do not publish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
Mirola, Jesus, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mirola-jesus-texcrimapp-2019.