IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
CAUSE NUMBER 10,947-A IN THE 29TH JUDICIAL
DISTRICT COURT OF PALO PINTO COUNTY
Per curiam.
O R D E R
This is an application for a writ of habeas corpus that was transmitted to this Court by the clerk of the trial court pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07, Section 3, of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Ex parte Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of capital murder and was sentenced to a term of life in prison. The conviction was affirmed on direct appeal in an unpublished opinion. Adams v. State, No. 11-00-00114-CR (Tex. App.--Eastland May 30, 2002, pet. ref'd).
In this application for a writ of habeas corpus, Applicant makes fifty-one claims that can be divided into ten categories: trial court error, jury charge error, trial court bias, Brady violations, prosecutorial misconduct, Miranda violations, unlawful search and seizure claims, a claim of cruel and unusual punishment, a speedy trial claim, and assertions of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. The State has not responded, and while the trial court has entered findings of fact, it is this Court's opinion that additional information is needed before a decision may be rendered. Because this Court does not hear evidence, though, the trial court is the appropriate forum. See Ex parte Rodriguez, 334 S.W.2d 294, 294 (Tex. Crim. App. 1960).
In its findings, the trial court indicates that most of Applicant's claims were previously denied by the court "either in pretrial hearings, during the trial or in post-trial hearing on a Motion for New Trial." But Applicant has alleged additional facts and claims in his application that, if true, may entitle him to relief. The trial court shall, therefore, resolve the issues raised in the application as set out in Article 11.07, Section 3(d), of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, by holding an evidentiary hearing. After such a hearing, the trial court shall make further findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding Applicant's Brady violation claims (numbers 7, 12, 17, and 19), his prosecutorial misconduct claim (number 42), and his ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel claims (numbers 38, 47, 50, and 51). (1) The trial court shall also make any further findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning Applicant's other claims that it deems relevant and appropriate to the disposition of Applicant's application for habeas corpus relief. Further, the trial court shall supplement the record to this Court with the trial transcript, including any pre-trial hearings, the trial, and any post-trial hearings.
Before holding the evidentiary hearing concerning this writ application, the trial court shall first determine whether Applicant is indigent. If the trial court finds that Applicant is indigent, and Applicant desires to be represented by counsel, the trial court will then, pursuant to the provisions of Article 26.04 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, appoint an attorney to represent him at the hearing.
Further, because this Court does not hear evidence, Ex parte Rodriguez, 334 S.W.2d at 294, this application for a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus will be held in abeyance pending the trial court's compliance with this order. Resolution of the issues shall be accomplished by the trial court within 120 days of the date of this order. (2) A supplemental transcript containing all affidavits and interrogatories and the transcription of the court reporter's notes from the hearing or any deposition along with the trial court's supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law and the transcriptions previously discussed, shall be returned to this Court within 180 days of the date of this order. (3)
DELIVERED: October 4, 2006
DO NOT PUBLISH
1.
Brady Violation Claims: (7) State suppressed its illegal seizure of a red spiral tax ledger taken by Deputy Goin and Deputy Cris Cogdill from Applicant's pick-up truck under the guise of an inventory search, which notebook contained documentation concerning Applicant's yearly earnings, expenses, expense receipts dating up to December 26, 1996, and which would have demonstrated that Applicant was not "broke" as alleged by the State in support of his motive to commit a robbery; (12) State deliberately suppressed material exculpatory evidence consisting of two Hood County inmate-request-for-appointed-counsel forms and six "Jail-Kites" requesting appointment of counsel; (17) State deliberately suppressed material impeachment material consisting of the disciplinary actions of Hood County Deputies Goin and Law; and (19) State destroyed and suppressed a material exculpatory document, a "Jail-Kite" generated January 3, 1997, which withdrew Applicant's consent to search;
Prosecutorial Misconduct Claims: (42) State manufactured false evidence and knowingly used the perjured testimony of Deputy Goin, Officer Roger Brock, Dr. Gill King, Gary Miller, Kelly Smith, Glen Casey, Carol Roberts, Nanette Cane, Sheila Cross Brown, and Pat Radamacher; and
Ineffective Assistance of Trial and Appellate Counsel: (38) Applicant was denied his right to
effective assistance of appellate counsel because the court reporter failed to transcribe fourteen bench
conferences as required under Tex. R. App. Proc. 13.1 and 13.2 (a)(3), and was not excused by the
parties in making the transcription; (47) Applicant was denied his right to effective assistance of
appellate counsel because the trial judge failed to make required specific findings of fact under Tex.
Code Crim. Proc. art. 38.22 § 6, when Applicant challenged the voluntariness of the statements he
gave Deputy Goin during custodial interrogation; (50) Trial counsel provided ineffective assistance
at all phases of Applicant's case; and (51) Appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance by
failing to raise meritorious issues at the motion for new trial hearing and on direct appeal,
specifically, those raised in the habeas application that should have been raised on direct appeal.
2. 3.