Macias argues that the prosecutors were aware Carrasco had cried while speaking to Hamilton at the inception of the case and she appeared to be having emotional difficulties in the minutes prior to her testimony, and therefore, the prosecutors should have anticipated the witness would have a "meltdown" when she testified. This is similar to the argument raised by the appellant in Washington v. State, 326 S.W.3d 701 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, no pet.), a case which involved an emotional outburst by the complainant just before he testified.

We review a trial court's ruling on a pretrial writ of habeas corpus for an abuse of discretion. See Kniatt v. State, 206 S.W.3d 657, 664 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Washington v. State, 326 S.W.3d 701, 704 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, no pet.). In conducting this review, we view the facts in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling.

We view the facts in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling and, absent an abuse of discretion, uphold that ruling. Ex parte Wheeler, 203 S.W.3d 317, 323 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006); Kniatt v. State, 206 S.W.3d 657, 664 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006); Washington v. State, 326 S.W.3d 701, 704 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, no pet.); Ex parte Ramirez, 2012 WL 311340 at *2; Ex parte Torres, 08-10-00330-CR, 2012 WL 1431660 (Tex.App.--El Paso Apr. 25, 2012, no pet.)(not designated for publication). We afford almost total deference to the trial court's determination of the historical facts supported by the record, especially when those facts are based upon an evaluation of credibility and demeanor.

We defer to the trial court's findings when the record supports them. See Washington v. State, 326 S.W.3d 701, 704 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, no pet.) (citing Ex parte Wheeler, 203 S.W.3d at 325-26). The defendant seeking habeas corpus relief bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of evidence his entitlement to relief.

Additionally, we note that other courts of appeals have generally found that a witness's conduct cannot be imputed to the prosecution absent a finding that the prosecutor had advance notice that the witness intended to engage in the misconduct. See Washington v. State, 326 S.W.3d 701, 706 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, no pet.); Ex parte Washington, 168 S.W.3d 227, 238 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, no pet.). There is no evidence in the record suggesting that the prosecutors had advance notice that Luna was going to testify using an altered record.

We review the trial court's ruling on a pretrial application for a writ of habeas corpus for an abuse of discretion. See id. ; Ex parte Arango , 518 S.W.3d at 923–24 ; Washington v. State , 326 S.W.3d 701, 704 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, no pet.). In doing so, we view the facts in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling and defer to the trial court's implied factual findings that are supported by the record.

We review a trial court's ruling on a pretrial application for a writ of habeas corpus for an abuse of discretion. See Kniatt v. State, 206 S.W.3d 657, 664 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Washington v. State, 326 S.W.3d 701, 704 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, no pet.). In conducting our review, we view the facts in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling and defer to the trial court's implied findings that the record supports.

We review the trial court's ruling on a pretrial application for a writ of habeas corpus for an abuse of discretion. See id.; Ex parte Arango, 518 S.W.3d at 923-24; Washington v. State, 326 S.W.3d 701, 704 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, no pet.). In conducting this review, we view the facts in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling and defer to the trial court's implied factual findings that are supported by the record.

We review a trial court's ruling on a pretrial application for a writ of habeas corpus for an abuse of discretion. See Kniatt v. State, 206 S.W.3d 657, 664 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Washington v. State, 326 S.W.3d 701, 704 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, no pet.). In conducting this review, we view the facts in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling and defer to the trial court's implied findings that are supported by the record.

We review a trial court's ruling on a pretrial writ of habeas corpus for an abuse of discretion. See Kniatt v. State, 206 S.W.3d 657, 664 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Washington v. State, 326 S.W.3d 701, 704 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, no pet.). In conducting this review, we view the facts in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling.