IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
NO. WR-82,828-01
EX PARTE RODNEY ANDERSON, Applicant
ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
CAUSE NO. 09-07-07255-CR(1) IN THE 359TH DISTRICT COURT
FROM MONTGOMERY COUNTY
Per curiam.
ORDER
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 a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte
Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of one count of
possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance and one count of aggravated assault of a
public servant and sentenced to forty years’ and life imprisonment, respectively. The Ninth Court
of Appeals affirmed his convictions in Anderson v. State, No. 09-10-00061-CR
(Tex.App.—Beaumont Dec. 21, 2011)(not designated for publication).
Applicant contends, among other things, that the State withheld favorable evidence from the
defense.
2
Applicant has alleged facts that, if true, might entitle him to relief. Brady v. Maryland, 373
US 83 (1963). In these circumstances, additional facts are needed. As we held in Ex parte
Rodriguez, 334 S.W.2d 294, 294 (Tex. Crim. App. 1960), the trial court is the appropriate forum for
findings of fact. The trial court shall provide the prosecutor with the opportunity to respond to
Applicant’s claim that material, exculpatory evidence was improperly suppressed. The trial court
may use any means set out in TEX . CODE CRIM . PROC. art. 11.07, § 3(d).
It appears that Applicant is represented by counsel. The trial court shall determine whether
Applicant is represented by counsel, and if not, whether Applicant is indigent. If Applicant is
indigent and wishes to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an attorney to represent
Applicant at the hearing. TEX . CODE CRIM . PROC. art. 26.04.
The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether the State
withheld material evidence of Anderson’s innocence by failing to disclose that eyewitnesses had
given statements at the scene in which they were unable to identify the armed men rushing Applicant
as law enforcement officers, tending to show that Applicant and his co-defendant were not aware
these men were law enforcement. The trial court shall also make findings of fact and conclusions
of law as to whether the State failed to disclose the State’s informant’s contingency fee contract.
The trial court shall also make findings of fact regarding whether the prosecutor improperly
suppressed evidence in this cause. The trial court shall also make any other findings of fact and
conclusions of law that it deems relevant and appropriate to the disposition of Applicant’s claim for
habeas corpus relief.
This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fact issues. The
issues shall be resolved within 90 days of this order. A supplemental transcript containing all
3
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 forwarded to this Court within 120 days of the date of this order. Any extensions of time shall
be obtained from this Court.
Filed: March 25, 2015
Do not publish