Montez, Raymond Soliz AKA Montes, Raymond Solis
This text of Montez, Raymond Soliz AKA Montes, Raymond Solis (Montez, Raymond Soliz AKA Montes, Raymond Solis) 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-92,828-01
EX PARTE RAYMOND SOLIS MONTEZ AKA RAYMOND SOLIS MONTES, Applicant
ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS CAUSE NO. 18-01-12687-1-CR IN THE 38TH DISTRICT COURT FROM MEDINA COUNTY
Per curiam.
ORDER
Applicant pleaded no contest to deadly conduct and, after his community supervision
revocation, was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. Applicant filed this application for a writ
of habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and the district clerk forwarded it to this Court. See
TEX . CODE CRIM . PROC. art. 11.07.
Applicant contends, among other things, that his plea was involuntary because trial counsel
did not investigate the facts and applicable law. Applicant has alleged facts that, if true, might entitle
him to relief. Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985); Ex parte Moody, 991 S.W.2d 856 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1999). 2
This Court remanded to the trial court with an order to obtain a response from trial counsel
and to make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether trial counsel’s performance was
deficient at the initial plea proceedings and Applicant would have insisted on a trial but for counsel’s
alleged deficient performance. The trial court has issued findings of fact and conclusions of law but
does not appear to base those findings on an affidavit from trial counsel. Further, the document is
internally inconsistent in that the trial court found Applicant “has met his burden of proving his
factual allegations by a preponderance of the evidence...” but also recommends denying relief.
Accordingly, the record should be further developed with supplemental findings of fact and
conclusions of law. The trial court is the appropriate forum for findings of fact. TEX . CODE CRIM .
PROC. art. 11.07, § 3(d). The trial court shall order trial counsel to respond to Applicant’s claim.
In developing the record, the trial court may use any means set out in Article 11.07, § 3(d). It appears
that Applicant is represented by counsel. If the trial court elects to hold a hearing, it shall determine
if Applicant is represented by counsel, and if not, 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. If counsel is appointed or retained,
the trial court shall immediately notify this Court of counsel’s name.
The trial court shall make supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law within ninety
days from the date of this order. The district clerk shall then immediately forward to this Court the
trial court’s findings and conclusions and the record developed on remand, including, among other
things, affidavits, motions, objections, proposed findings and conclusions, orders, and transcripts
from hearings and depositions. See TEX . R. APP. P. 73.4(b)(4). Any extensions of time must be
requested by the trial court and obtained from this Court. 3
Filed: January 25, 2023 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
Montez, Raymond Soliz AKA Montes, Raymond Solis, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/montez-raymond-soliz-aka-montes-raymond-solis-texcrimapp-2023.