IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
NO. WR-54,908-02
EX PARTE BRYAN DEAN HOSKINS, Applicant
ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
CAUSE NO. 045779-B IN THE 59TH DISTRICT COURT
FROM GRAYSON 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 aggravated sexual
assault of a child and sentenced to sixty years’ imprisonment. The Fifth Court of Appeals affirmed
his conviction. Hoskins v. State, No. 05-00-01278-CR (Tex. App. — Dallas, Oct. 17, 2001) (not
designated for publication).
On March 5, 2003, this Court denied Applicant’s initial state habeas application challenging
this conviction without written order. On September 13, 2016, Applicant filed this application in
2
the district court. In this application Applicant alleges, among other things,1 that he was denied due
process and a fair trial when the State unknowingly presented false or perjured testimony from
witness Carolyn Ridling.
The district court recommends dismissing this application as a subsequent application barred
by Article 11.07, section 4 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. However, in this application,
Applicant alleges that his conviction was obtained through the State’s unknowing use of false or
perjured testimony. Applicant points out that such a claim was not available at the time he filed his
initial habeas application, and was not recognized as a basis for habeas relief until this Court’s
opinion in Ex parte Chabot, 300 S.W.3d 768 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009).
Applicant also presents facts which are sufficient to bring him within the ambit of the new
legal basis for relief, under Ex parte Oranday-Garcia,410 S.W.3d 865, 867 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013).
Applicant has alleged facts that, if true, might entitle to relief. 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 supplement
the habeas record with a copy of the trial transcripts, specifically including the testimony of witness
Carolyn Ridling. The trial court shall make findings of fact as to whether Ridling’s testimony
regarding her qualifications and certification as a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner was false. In
addition, the trial court shall make findings of fact as to whether Ridling’s testimony was material
to Applicant’s conviction or punishment. The trial court may use any means set out in TEX . CODE
CRIM . PROC. art. 11.07, § 3(d). In the appropriate case, the trial court may rely on its personal
recollection. Id.
1
This Court has considered Applicant’s other claims and finds them to be without merit.
3
If the trial court elects to hold a hearing, it shall determine 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
unknowingly presented false testimony at Applicant’s trial, and if so, whether the false testimony
more likely than not contributed to Applicant’s conviction or punishment. 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
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 must
be requested by the trial court and shall be obtained from this Court.
Filed: November 2, 2016
Do not publish
Hoskins, Bryan Dean
Combined Opinion