Washinton, Ex Parte Vennetta A/K/A Branetta Sue Washington

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedApril 29, 2009
DocketAP-76,143
StatusPublished

This text of Washinton, Ex Parte Vennetta A/K/A Branetta Sue Washington (Washinton, Ex Parte Vennetta A/K/A Branetta Sue Washington) 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
Washinton, Ex Parte Vennetta A/K/A Branetta Sue Washington, (Tex. 2009).

Opinion



IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS




NO. AP-76,143




EX PARTE VENNETTA WASHINGTON

                                    AKA BRANETTA SUE WASHINGTON, Applicant





ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 1178636 IN THE 232ND DISTRICT COURT

FROM HARRIS COUNTY




           Per curiam.

O P I N I O N


            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 pleaded guilty and was convicted of assault on a public servant and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment. She did not appeal her conviction.

            Applicant contends, inter alia, that her trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance because he failed to investigate Applicant’s age to discover she was only fifteen years old at the time of her offense and plea. We remanded this application to the trial court for findings of fact and conclusions of law.

            Trial counsel filed an affidavit with the trial court. Based on that affidavit, as well as the entirety of the record, the trial court determined that trial counsel was ineffective in that counsel failed to discover Applicant was fifteen years old at the time of her offense and plea and that such ineffective representation prejudiced Applicant. Applicant is entitled to relief. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); Hernandez v. State, 726 S.W.2d 53, 56-57 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). We find, therefore, that Applicant is entitled to relief in the judgment of conviction in Cause No. 1178636 from the 232nd Judicial District Court of Harris County.

            Relief is granted. The judgment in Cause No. 1178636 in the 232nd Judicial District Court of Harris County is set aside, and Applicant is remanded to the custody of the sheriff of Harris County.

            Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–Correctional Institutions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Delivered: April 29, 2009

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)
Hernandez v. State
726 S.W.2d 53 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1986)
Ex Parte Young
418 S.W.2d 824 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Washinton, Ex Parte Vennetta A/K/A Branetta Sue Washington, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/washinton-ex-parte-vennetta-aka-branetta-sue-washi-texcrimapp-2009.