IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
NO. WR-86,209-01
EX PARTE ROBERT MOORE, JR.
AKA ROBERT NATHAN MOORE, JR., Applicant
ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
CAUSE NO. 2011-433,247-A IN THE 137TH DISTRICT COURT
FROM LUBBOCK 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 possession of
marihuana and sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment. The Seventh Court of Appeals affirmed his
conviction. Moore v. State, No. 07-13-00270-CR (Tex. App.—Amarillo Apr. 24, 2014) (not
designated for publication).
Applicant contends, among other things, that trial counsel failed to object on confrontation
clause grounds to Officer Benito Gonzales’s testimony.
2
Applicant has alleged facts that, if true, might entitle him to relief. Strickland v. Washington,
466 U.S. 668 (1984); Ex parte Patterson, 993 S.W.2d 114, 115 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). 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 to respond to Applicant’s claim. 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 him 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: (1) Officer
Gonzales’s testimony was objectionable on confrontation clause grounds, see Langham v. State, 305
S.W.3d 568, 579–80 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010); (2) counsel objected; (3) if he did not, he made a
reasonable strategic decision not to do so; (4) counsel’s conduct was deficient; and (5) Applicant was
prejudiced. 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: March 1, 2017
Do not publish