Roberson, Crystal Yvette

D+;Q_-e,\\<\\d~eja Q~ “"33) D~ “ \5 w .- 383 "‘ 5 ` _ RECE|VED |N g Q' ST P` COURT OF CR|M|NAL APPEALS AY> a \_ 0 m ' * » ~ ER\< 05008 2015: C_O\wcr. @\= aarv<\:w\\_ ~A\>P\=_ALS `P~‘>‘ %c>\ \;L;>><>%5 cav‘;m_$¢m:m Abel Acosta, Cferk \\\\SY:_N§YE`I;A S` r\%q\\ ,F\E Y~TK`\¢>~X Q<)\»\~v~<% C/c\%‘€»:“`~ \9`5 ‘\Lv$%~ § TD § \~\'0 \Aofgz@§¢\'~ ~ _ ; , a NA dow §§ STME` s ®Rl5; \~&o&»\s £\{A `\(\\_\J,\’(S COL \\§ \“\ \ wiqu !\:\N<§\ €\\\<‘AQB (Q C)Op»\ cr\: STMT§SGUQMAL'MSW ’Yc> N\»\ \!\5?~?\+ NG\\F;`SG\(DS?>~C,` ‘ _ d ,'p\\§e NO»§¢: N\\\ Qrkv\.\\\ix €>\\X~€, Q\\MQ`N Ol\\\ `N\\\\N\’~\‘\ MX\\\MM _ wq§,\;d\\é\wv\: »\JM+'(£\A\ CU\Q: \\AA IW?~\SK\QR\D\~\. ><0 UM\L\~ MMW{ '0§‘ 0\,5§ Au\~l~&> §A ‘- 5 S({\ 1\ \!K<. ¢\S ‘L \€53‘~’3%““\\¢)§\§ o§~§@ 3a § q v\§~e)z_ ';\N§\\v N\Q;§`\\\ N:&\\;t§ , e, \l§xe,\&e Osv\ &§%`?\1>&&\:<§§\ KB\SS`CT\\\\-n l us’\NB ry AQAA\\\ \¢\\Q,A\>w~\` mm;\s; WL M:\~ ms N@i\-l§:;@§\§§§§; C§§»Q§§§\S CW Ac\`\w§§` mus.% `°">§3\¥@ `o®\ers.}wey. b\\S Q; S N\R€\"N\ ;`N\ N%\vd NY§\¥\\AS)\ exxon cAusE No; Fmsr sEmNc DATE: lN THE NAME AND BY AUTHORITY OF 'I'HE STATE OF TEXAS: The duly organized Grand Jury of Harris County, Texas, presents in the District Court of Ham's Coimty, Texas, that in Harris County, Texas, CRYSTAL YVE'ITE ROBERSON, hereafter styled the Defiendant, heretofore on or about APRIL 17, 2010, did then and there unlawfully, intentionally and knowingly cause bodily injury to ALYNNCIA HARRIS, a person with whom the Defendant had a dating relationship, hereafter styled the Complainant, by using a deadly weapon, namely, A KN'IFE. Before the commission of the o&`ense alleged above, (hereatter styled the primary offense), on JULY 8, 1991, in Cause Number 0590710, in the 177TH DISTRICT COURT of HARRIS County, Texas, the Defendant was convicted of the felony of POSSESSION WlTH INTENT TO DELIVER A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE. ~ ' Before the commission of the primary otfense, and alter the conviction in Cause Number 0590710 was final, the Defendant committed the felony of AGGRAVATED ASSAULT and was finally convicted of that offense on AUGUST 28, 1989, in Cause Number 475567, in the 232ND DISTRICT COURT of HARRIS County, Texas. - FILED Jaekson Lgl§!?lct Cle¢k JuL 06 2010 Tlme: D`.’Ol pm _ W -Page l ofl 3 3 - . s F°'e § / 180”' A§Ams'r THE PEACE ANr) anNrrY oF THE s'rATE. d£/ ( ,¢;_ - - 7 § § FOREMAN or THE GRAND JURY 0 § REcoRoER's MEMoRANouM 5 INDICTMENT Thls instrument is of poor qual|fy o at the time of lmagl"g I, Chris Daniel, District Clerk of Harris County, Texas certify that this is a true and correct copy of the original record filed and or recorded in my office, electronically or hard copy, as it appears on this date. Witness my official hand and seal of office this Cotober 19, ZQLS Certified DocumentNumber: 45 40700 TotalPa es: l WWM Chris Daniel, DISTRICT'CLERK HARRIS COUN'I`Y, TEXAS In accordancewith Texas Government Code 406.013 electronically transmitted authenticated documents are valid. If there is a question regarding the validity of this document and or seal please e-mail support@hcdistrictclerk.com Cause No. 1259653-C EX PARTE § IN THE 262ND DISTRICT § coURT oF cRYSTAL Y. RoBERSoN, § HARRIS coUNTY, TEXAS Applicant STATE'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT,` CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER Having reviewed the documents filed in cause number 1259653-C and the official trial court records of the challenged conviction, The Couit adopts as Findings of Fact the history of the case as set forth in the State’s Original Answer. The Court finds that there are no controverted, previously unresolved facts material to'the legality of the applicant’s confinement which require an evidentiary hearing and recommends that the relief requested be denied for the following reasons: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Court finds that the applicant was initially indicted for the felony offense of aggravated assault against a family member. See State’s Exhz`bit B, Indictment, cause number 1259653. On the day that trial commenced the State abandoned the language that alleged the applicant and the complainant had a dating relationship See State’s E§chz'bit A, Indictment, cause number 1259653. 2. The Court finds that after a two day trial the applicant was convicted of the felony offense of aggravated assault. The presiding judge at the time, the Honorable Mike Anderson, found that the offense was committed against a family member and that a deadly weapon was used (IV R.R. at 17). The Court finds that the jury assessed the applicant’s punishment at thirty years confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Correctional Institutions Division. 3. The Court finds that the applicant’s conviction was affirmed by the First Court of Appeals. Roberson v. State, 371 S.W.3d 557 (Tex. App. - Houston [lSt Dist.] 2013, pet. granted). The Court of Criminal Appeals granted the applicant’s petition for discretionary review and subsequently affirmed the applicant’s conviction, Roberson v. State, 420 S.W.3d 832 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). . The Court finds that the applicant’s two prior applications for writ of habeas corpus were dismissed on May 9, 2012, and December 18, 2013, respectively, because they were filed before the applicant’s appeal was final. The applicant’s appeal became final when the mandate issued on December 17, 2013. . The Court finds that the State presented sufficient evidence to support the applicant’s conviction _ . The Court finds that the applicant was represented by appointed counsel, Ms. Ruth Y. Burton (“Burton”). . The Court finds, contrary to the applicant’s assertion, that Burton objected numerous times during the applicant’s trial (III R.R. at 18-19, 39, 41, 48, 56, 58, 64, 90, 98-99, 137). ' CONCLUSIONS OF LAW . The Court had jurisdiction over the applicant’s case because she was charged and convicted of the felony offense of aggravated assault. Tex. Pen. Code § 22.02(b) (West 2009). . The applicant’s second ground for relief is meritless because her complaint of an' improper deadly Weapon finding should have been raised on direct appeal. Ex parte Nelson, 137 S.W.3d 666 (Tex. Crim. App./2004). . Challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence are not cognizable in post-conviction habeas proceedings Ex parte Easter, 615 S.W.2d 719 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981); Ex parte ' 'Christz'an, 760 S.W.2d 659, 660 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). Applicant’s first, second, third, fifth, sixth, and seventh grounds for relief are without merit. . The applicant has failed to prove by a.preponderance of the evidence that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different Milchell v. State, 68 S.W.3d 640, 642 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); Narvaiz v. State, 840 S.W.2d 415, 434 (Tex'. Crim. App. 1992) (citing Strz"ckland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 (1984)). 5. The applicant fails to allege what objection(s) that Burton should have made. Further, the ' applicant has not shown that the trial judge would have committed error in overruling any objection had it been made. Ex parte White, 160 S.W.3d 46 (Tex. Crim-. App. 2004); Vaughn v. State, 931 S.W.2d 564 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). 6. The applicant fails to allege and show what a more thorough, in-depth investigation would have revealed and how it would have benefitted his defense. Mooney v. State, 817 S.W.2d 693, 696-97 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Wilkerson v. State, 726 S.W.2d 542, 550 (Tex .Crim. App. 1986). l 7. The totality of the representation afforded Applicant was sufficient to protect his right to reasonably effective assistance of trial counsel. 8. In all things, Applicant fails to show that his conviction and sentence were improperly l obtained. Accordingly, it is recommended to the Tean Court of Criminal Appeals that the requested habeas relief be denied. Q;RM THE CLERK IS ORDERED to prepare a transcript and transmit same to the Court of Criminal Appeals as provided by TEX. CRIM. PROC. CODE art. 11.07. _The transcript shall include certified copies of the following documents: 1. 5. 6. the application for writ of habeas corpus, and any additional pleadings filed by the applicant; State’s answer and all attachements; the Court's order; the indictment, judgment and sentence, and docket sheets in cause number 1259653 (unless they have been sent to the Tean Court of Criminal Appeals pursuant to a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus order); the clerk’s & reporter’s record in cause number 1255963; and the appellate opinions in cause number 1259653. THE CLERK is further ORDERED to send a copy of this order to the applicant, Crystal Y. Roberson, # 1915067 - Lane Murray Unit, 1916 N. Hwy 36 Bypass, Gatesville, TX 76596; and to the State, Assistant District Attorney Andrew J. Srnith, Harris County District Attorney’s Oflice, 1201 Franklin Suite 600, Houston, Texas 77002. ' By the following signature, the Court adopts the State’s Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order. sIGNED this day of . , 2015. IUDGE PRESIDING Cause No. 1259653-C EX PARTE ` § IN THE 262ND DISTRICT § ' ~ coURr oF cRYsTAL Y. RoBERSoN, § l HARRIS coUNTY, TEXAS Applicant CERTIFICATE oF sERvicE The undersigned counsel certifies that I have served a copy of the “State's Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order” in cause number 1259653-A to the applicant on October 20, 2015, by mail as follows: Crystal Y. Roberson # 1915067 - Lane Murray Unit 1916 N. Hwy 36 Bypass Gatesville, TX 76596 Andrew J. Smirh / Assistant District Attomey Harris County, Texas ` 1201 Franklin, Suite 600 Houston, Texas 77002 ` (713) 755-6657 Texas Bar ID #24048100