IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
NO. WR-83,520-01
EX PARTE ROBERT SNEED, Applicant
ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
CAUSE NO. 1429267-A IN THE 262ND DISTRICT COURT
FROM HARRIS 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 pleaded guilty to possession of a
controlled substance by fraud and was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. He did not appeal his
conviction.
In a single ground, Applicant contends that his guilty plea was rendered involuntary because
when he pleaded guilty, he lacked knowledge that the credibility of certain State witnesses was
questionable. The trial court made findings of fact and conclusions of law and initially recommended
2
that we grant relief. On September 16, 2015, we remanded this application and directed the trial
court to determine who these witnesses were, what their testimony would have been at trial, why
their testimony would not have been credible, what evidence was not disclosed to Applicant, and
why this evidence was material.
On remand, the record was developed, and the trial court made further findings of fact and
conclusions of law and again recommended that we grant relief. We believe that the record is not
adequate to resolve Applicant’s claim.
Applicant has alleged facts that, if true, might entitle him to relief. Brady v. United States,
397 U.S. 742 (1970). 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 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.
Applicant appears to be represented by counsel. If he is not and the trial court decides 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 further findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether the
prescription form in Applicant’s case was fraudulent. TEX . HEALTH & SAFETY CODE §
481.129(a)(5)(B); see also Avery v. State, 359 S.W.3d 230 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). The trial court
shall also make further findings and conclusions as to whether Applicant forged the signature on the
prescription form or otherwise engaged in misrepresentation, fraud, deception, or subterfuge. TEX .
HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 481.129(a)(5)(A). The trial court shall make any other findings of fact
3
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: December 9, 2015
Do not publish
Sneed, Robert
Combined Opinion