IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
CAUSE NO. 647853-A IN THE 232ND DISTRICT COURT
HARRIS COUNTY
Per curiam.
O R D E R
This is an application for a writ of habeas corpus that was transmitted to this Court pursuant to the provisions of Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.07. Applicant was convicted of the offense of murder and sentenced to confinement for twenty years. Applicant's conviction was affirmed on appeal. McGowen v. State, No. 01-02-00416-CR (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.], delivered June 5, 2003, pet. ref'd).
Applicant contends that trial counsel was ineffective. Specifically, he contends, among other things, that counsel failed to impeach Jeannie Jacques with her prior inconsistent statement, failed to cross-examine Summer Edwards to establish motive and bias, and failed to object to the State's alleged misstatement of the law during its closing argument.
The trial court has not entered findings of fact or conclusions of law. We believe that Applicant has alleged facts that, if true, might entitle him to relief. Therefore, it is this Court's opinion that additional facts need to be developed and because this Court cannot hear evidence, the trial court is the appropriate forum. The trial court shall resolve those issues as set out in Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.07, § 3 (d), in that it may order additional affidavits, depositions, or interrogatories from trial counsel, or it may order a hearing. In the appropriate case the trial court may also rely on its personal recollection.
If the trial court elects to hold a hearing, the court shall first decide whether Applicant is indigent. If the trial court finds that Applicant is indigent and Applicant desires to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall then, pursuant to the provisions of Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 26.04, appoint an attorney to represent him at the hearing.
Following receipt of additional information, the trial court shall make findings of fact as to whether counsel was ineffective for not impeaching Jeannie Jacques, not cross-examining Summer Edwards, and not objecting to the State's alleged misstatement of the law. The trial court shall also make any further findings of fact and conclusions of law it deems relevant and appropriate to the disposition of the application for writ of habeas corpus.
Because this Court does not hear evidence, Ex Parte Rodriquez, 334 S.W.2d 294 (Tex. Crim. App. 1960), 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 90 days of the date of this order. (1) 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 returned to this Court within 120 days of the date of this order. (2)
IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MAY, 2006.
DO NOT PUBLISH
1. 2.