Perez, Cutberto

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedApril 2, 2014
DocketWR-79,831-01
StatusPublished

This text of Perez, Cutberto (Perez, Cutberto) 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
Perez, Cutberto, (Tex. 2014).

Opinion



IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS




NO. WR-79,831-01




EX PARTE CUTBERTO PEREZ, Applicant





ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. CR-07-0170-A IN THE 22ND DISTRICT COURT

FROM HAYS 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 indecency with a child and sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment. The Third Court of Appeals dismissed his appeal. Perez v. State, No. 03-09-00092-CR (Tex. App.—Austin 2010, no pet.).

            Applicant contends that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. On September 11, 2013, we remanded this application and directed the trial court to order trial counsel to respond to Applicant’s claim. We also directed the trial court to make findings of fact and conclusions of law after it reviewed trial counsel’s response. On remand, the trial court found, among other things, that trial counsel “has not provided an affidavit or other explanation or insight into her trial strategies or conversations with Applicant.”

            The record is not sufficient to resolve Applicant’s claim. We are unable to determine from the record whether trial counsel was given an opportunity to respond to Applicant’s claim or whether she was given an opportunity but declined to respond. If the trial court has not given trial counsel an opportunity to respond, it shall do so. If trial counsel was given an opportunity to respond but declined to do so, the trial court shall make this finding.

            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 may use any means set out in Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.07, § 3(d).

            Applicant appears to be represented by counsel. If he is not and 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 him at the hearing. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 26.04.

            If counsel responds to Applicant’s claim, the trial court shall make further findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether counsel’s conduct was deficient and Applicant was prejudiced. 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 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 shall be obtained from this Court.

Filed:  April 2, 2014

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)
Ex Parte Rodriguez
334 S.W.2d 294 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1960)
Ex Parte Patterson
993 S.W.2d 114 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1999)
Ex Parte Young
418 S.W.2d 824 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Perez, Cutberto, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perez-cutberto-texcrimapp-2014.