IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
NO. WR-86,128-01
EX PARTE CHARLIE LEE STEWART, SR., Applicant
ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
CAUSE NO. 70638-A IN THE 426TH DISTRICT COURT
FROM BELL COUNTY
Per curiam. A LCALA, J., filed a concurring opinion.
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 continuous
sexual abuse of a young child and sentenced to sixty years’ imprisonment. The Third Court of
Appeals affirmed his conviction. Stewart v. State, No. 03-13-00803-CR (Tex. App.—Austin Nov.
17, 2015)(not designated for publication).
Applicant contends, among other things that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance
because counsel (1) interfered with the contract between Applicant and retrained counsel, creating
2
a conflict of interest, (2) failed to meaningfully communicate with Applicant and call any witnesses,
(3) failed to make timely objections to the State’s motion-in-limine, Rule 412, and defective
indictment, (4) failed to file a motion to suppress the illegally seized panties, (5) failed to consult
with Applicant on the findings of the investigation report, (6) failed to prepare Applicant to testify
on his own behalf and failed to advise Applicant of the ramifications of taking the stand, (6) failed
to cross-examine Shontaye Glasper, (7) failed to request jury instructions on the admissibility of the
panties that were illegally seized, and (8) failed to present a defense.
Applicant also contends that his appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance because
counsel failed to brief the issue of the improper admission of extraneous offenses on direct appeal.
Applicant has alleged facts that, if true, might entitle him to relief. Smith v. Robbins, 528
U.S. 259, 285-86 (2000); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). 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 order
trial counsel and appellate counsel to respond to Applicant’s claim of ineffective assistance of
counsel. The trial court may use any means set out in TEX . CODE CRIM . PROC. art. 11.07, § 3(d).
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
performance of Applicant’s trial counsel was deficient and, if so, whether counsel’s deficient
performance prejudiced Applicant. The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of
law as to whether the performance of Applicant’s appellate counsel was deficient and, if so, whether
3
counsel’s deficient performance prejudiced Applicant. 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: February 15, 2017
Do not publish