IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
NO. WR-87,465-01
EX PARTE JUDIST LAMOND BROUSSARD, Applicant
ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
CAUSE NO. 1256403-A IN THE 337TH 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 was convicted of capital murder
and sentenced to imprisonment for life. The First Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction.
Broussard v. State, No. 01-15-00074-CR (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 10. 2015)(not
designated for publication) .
Applicant contends, among other things, that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance
because counsel failed to object to the testimony of Juan Figueredo, which consisted of hearsay
statements made by John Siros, a non-testifying witness, in violation of the Confrontation Clause.
2
Counsel objected to the introduction of the testimony in question as hearsay, and the trial court
overruled the objections, allowing the testimony in under the statement against interest exception
to the hearsay rule. However, there is nothing in the record to indicate whether counsel made any
objection under the Confrontation Clause, and if not, why not. See Crawford v. Washington, 541
U.S. 36, 69 (2004). Applicant also alleges that appellate counsel failed to raise on appeal (1) that
the trial court erred by allowing the hearsay testimony of Juan Figueredo and the statements of a non-
testifying witness, John Siros, in violation of the Confrontation Clause, and (2) trial court error for
overruling counsel’s 403 objections to the inadmissible victim character testimony of Anna Castillo.
In his memorandum, Applicant specifies the objectionable testimony of both Figueredo and Castillo.
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 and appellate counsel to respond to Applicant’s claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel. The trial court should consider the specific objectionable testimony made in
Applicant’s separate memorandum when assessing Applicant’s claims. 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 trial counsel’s deficient
3
performance prejudiced Applicant. The trial court shall also make findings of fact and conclusions
of law as to whether the performance of Applicant’s appellate counsel was deficient and, if so,
whether appellate 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: November 1, 2017
Do not publish
Broussard, Judist Lamond
Combined Opinion