Paul, Melvin Charles

• Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
• Decided: February 14, 2007
• Docket: WR-64,923-02
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-64,923-02 EX PARTE MELVIN CHARLES PAUL, Applicant ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 844969-A IN THE 174TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM HARRIS 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 writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Paul v. State, No. 14-00-00937-CR (Tex. App. - Houston, January 10, 2002, no pet.) (not designated for publication).

We remanded this application to the trial court for findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning Applicant's fourth and fifth claims, which alleged that appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance because counsel failed to advise him of his right to petition for discretionary review pro se and to move for rehearing of the decision on appeal. Thereafter, Applicant filed a "Motion Requesting Voluntary Dismissal of Grounds Three Thru Five Withdrawing Same Until Grounds One & Two are Specifically Addressed by Remand, Appointment of Counsel, and Evidentiary Hearing." Accordingly, we dismiss Applicant's claims concerning the dismissal of his appeal from a Chapter 64 proceeding and his requests for out-of-time proceedings on direct appeal.

Applicant's first and second grounds for relief are without merit. Applicant's first claim is that this Court should order the trial court to provide him with copies of the complete trial transcript free of charge because he cannot file a meaningful collateral attack without a complete copy of the trial transcript and he is indigent. Applicant's second claim is that this Court should appoint counsel to assist Applicant in the preparation of a habeas application because he is blind and mentally retarded, and so without the assistance of counsel he is effectively denied access to the courts.

Applicant has not shown that this Court should order the trial court to provide him with copies of the complete trial transcript free of charge. See, e.g., Eubanks v. Mullin, 909 S.W.2d 574 (Tex. App. - Fort Worth 1995, no pet); see also United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317 (1976). Finally, Applicant does not have a constitutional right to the assistance of counsel in the preparation of a habeas application. Ex parte Mines, 26 S.W.3d 910 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).

Delivered: February 14, 2007

Do not publish