IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
FROM CAUSE NO. 02-07-0029-CRA IN THE 81ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF ATASCOSA COUNTY
Per curiam.
O R D E R
This is an application for a writ of habeas corpus which was transmitted to this Court pursuant to the provisions of Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.07. Applicant pleaded guilty to the offense of driving while intoxicated, and punishment was assessed at three years' confinement. No direct appeal was taken.
Applicant contends that he is being improperly classified as ineligible for mandatory supervision because of a prior conviction for third degree aggravated assault. Because third degree aggravated assault was not on the list of non-mandatory-supervision-eligible offenses at the time he committed the instant offense, Applicant argues that the prior conviction cannot provide the basis for denying him mandatory supervision eligibility for this offense.
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 may resolve those issues as set out in Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.07, § 3 (d), in that it may order affidavits, depositions, or interrogatories from TDCJ-ID and the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, or it may order a hearing. In the appropriate case the trial court may 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 will 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 Applicant is in fact designated as ineligible for mandatory supervision for this offense, and if so, on what basis. If Applicant is classified as ineligible for mandatory supervision because of his 1991 conviction for third degree aggravated assault, the trial court shall make findings as to why. If Applicant has other convictions that would render him ineligible for mandatory supervision for the instant offense, the trial court shall include the indictment(s) and judgment(s) from any such offenses with its findings to this Court. 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 ninety 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 one hundred and twenty days of the date of this order. (2)
IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH, 2006.
EN BANC
DO NOT PUBLISH
1. 2.