Nunez, Adam Joseph
This text of Nunez, Adam Joseph (Nunez, Adam Joseph) 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-89,449-01
EX PARTE ADAM JOSEPH NUNEZ, Applicant
ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS CAUSE NO. 11-03-00029-CRK-A IN THE 81ST DISTRICT COURT FROM KARNES 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 pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual
assault of a child in exchange for ten years’ deferred adjudication community supervision. His
community supervision was later revoked, and he was sentenced to seventy years’ imprisonment
after adjudication. He did not appeal his conviction.
Applicant contends, among other things,1 that his counsel at adjudication rendered ineffective
1 This Court has considered Applicant’s other claims and finds them to be without merit. 2
assistance, resulting in an involuntary plea of “true,” because counsel advised Applicant that if he
pleaded “true” to the allegations in the motion to revoke, he would receive either 120 days in Karnes
County Jail, or 120 days of home confinement.
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
shall order adjudication counsel to respond to Applicant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
Specifically, adjudication counsel shall state whether he explained Applicant’s options at
adjudication to him, and whether he told Applicant that he would likely receive 120 in County Jail
or 120 days of home confinement if he pleaded “true” to the allegations in the motion to revoke. 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 Applicant at the hearing. TEX . CODE CRIM . PROC. art. 26.04.
The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether the
performance of Applicant’s adjudication counsel was deficient and, if so, whether counsel’s deficient
performance prejudiced Applicant. 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 claim 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 3
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
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: February 13, 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
Nunez, Adam Joseph, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nunez-adam-joseph-texcrimapp-2019.