Opinion
No. WR-12,387-07
January 25, 2006. DO NOT PUBLISH.
On Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, Cause No. W81-12426-M in the 194th District Court, from Dallas County.
ORDER
This is an application for a writ of habeas corpus which was transmitted to this Court by the clerk of the trial court pursuant to the provisions of Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.07. Applicant was convicted of the offense of aggravated robbery, and punishment was assessed at ninety-nine (99) years' confinement. Applicant's conviction was affirmed on appeal. State v. Hooper, No. 05-82-00056-CR (Tex.App.-Dallas, delivered May 5, 1983, no pet.). Applicant contends that he should have been released to mandatory supervision over two years ago. The trial court has entered findings of fact or conclusions of law finding that Applicant fails to state sufficient facts upon which relief can be granted. However, we do not believe that those findings are sufficient to completely resolve the issues presented. Because Applicant has stated facts requiring resolution and because this Court cannot hear evidence, it is necessary for the matter to be remanded to the trial court for resolution of those issues. The trial court shall resolve those issues as set out in Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.07, § 3 (d), in that it may order affidavits, depositions, or interrogatories from personnel at the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division and the Board of Pardons and Paroles or it may order a hearing. In the appropriate case the trial court may rely on its personal recollection. If the trial court elects to hold a hearing, it shall first decide whether Applicant is indigent. If the trial court finds that Applicant is indigent and Applicant desires to be represented by counsel, the trial court will then, pursuant to the provisions of Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 26.04, appoint an attorney to represent him at the hearing. The trial court shall then make findings of fact as to whether Applicant is eligible for release to mandatory supervision and, if so, whether he should be released. The trial court should also make any further findings of fact and conclusions of law it deems relevant and appropriate to the disposition of the application for writ of habeas corpus. Because this Court does not hear evidence, Ex Parte Rodriguez, 334 S.W.2d 294 (Tex.Crim.App. 1960), this application for a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus will be held in abeyance pending the trial court's compliance with this order. The trial court shall resolve the issues presented within ninety (90) days of the date of this order. A supplemental transcript containing any affidavits, the transcription of the court reporter's notes from any interrogatories or hearings held, along with the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law, shall be returned to this Court within one hundred twenty (120) days of the date of this order. IT IS SO ORDERED.
In the event any continuances are granted, copies of the order granting the continuance should be provided to this Court.
Any extensions of this time period should be obtained from this Court.