Soto, Eduardo Margarito
This text of Soto, Eduardo Margarito (Soto, Eduardo Margarito) 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-92,640-01
EX PARTE EDUARDO MARGARITO SOTO, Applicant
ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS CAUSE NO. C-297-W11884-1439642-A IN THE 297TH DISTRICT COURT FROM TARRANT COUNTY
Per curiam.
ORDER
Applicant pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual assault of a child under fourteen years of age
and was originally placed on ten years’ deferred adjudication. He was subsequently convicted on
his open plea of “true” to the allegations in the State’s Petition to Proceed to Adjudication and was
sentenced to thirty years’ imprisonment. Applicant appealed his conviction, but the Second Court
of Appeals dismissed it for want of jurisdiction. Soto v. State, No. 02-19-00171-CR (Tex.
App.—Fort Worth, Aug. 22, 2019) (not designated for publication). 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 trial counsel John Stickels was ineffective for 2
failing to adequately investigate the case. He alleges that Stickels did not interview witnesses, such
as the victim and the outcry witness; prepare a defense; or request discovery. Applicant has alleged
facts that, if true, might entitle him to relief. Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985); Ex parte Argent,
393 S.W.3d 781 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). Accordingly, the record should be developed. 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 John Stickels to submit a supplemental response to Applicant’s claim. In
developing the record, the trial court may use any means set out in Article 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 wants to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall appoint counsel to represent him
at the hearing. See 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 findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether trial counsel’s
performance was deficient and whether Applicant would have insisted on a trial but for counsel’s
alleged deficient performance. The trial court shall also make specific findings as to what
investigation counsel personally conducted, including whether he investigated the possibility that
Applicant was in prison on the offense date alleged by the outcry witness. The trial court may make
any other findings and conclusions that it deems appropriate in response to Applicant’s claim.
The trial court shall make 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 3
by the trial court and obtained from this Court.
Filed: August 25, 2021 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
Soto, Eduardo Margarito, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/soto-eduardo-margarito-texcrimapp-2021.