IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
NO. WR-81,845-01
EX PARTE SHANNON DALE DUKES, Applicant
ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
CAUSE NO. 8423 IN THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT
FROM JEFFERSON 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 continuous sexual
abuse of a child and sentenced to forty years’ imprisonment. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals
affirmed his conviction. Dukes v. State, No. 13-11-00434-CR (Tex. App. – Corpus Christi -
Edinburg, July 26, 2012).
Applicant contends that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance because counsel
failed to request lesser included offense instructions, failed to object to numerous instances of
2
extraneous offense/bad act/bad character evidence introduced by the State during the guilt/innocence
stage of trial, elicited some very damaging extraneous offense/bad act/bad character evidence from
the complainant’s mother on cross-examination, failed to object to improper hearsay and opinion
testimony from the complainant’s mother regarding what her therapist had told her, and failed to
argue that the State had opened the door to evidence of the complainant’s sexual activities with her
boyfriend and that to exclude such evidence violated his right to confront and cross-examine
witnesses. Applicant’s trial counsel has submitted two affidavits in response to this habeas
application. However, those affidavits are inadequate to address Applicant’s allegations. Although
the trial court has entered extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is unclear whether
those findings and conclusions are based on the trial court’s personal recollection, or whether they
are based on other information not in the habeas record.
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 conduct a live habeas hearing, at which trial counsel shall respond in detail to Applicant’s
claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.
The trial court 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
3
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 shall
be obtained from this Court.
Filed: September 24, 2014
Do not publish