Opinion
WR-88,477-01
12-13-2023
EX PARTE ISIDRO MIGUEL DELACRUZ, Applicant
Do Not Publish
ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS CAUSE NO. B-14-1134-SA-W-1 IN THE 119TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT TOM GREEN COUNTY
ORDER
PER CURIAM
This is an initial application for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to the provisions of Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 11.071, § 5.
Unless we specify otherwise, all references in this order to "Articles" refer to the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.
In April 2018, a jury convicted Applicant of capital murder for intentionally or knowingly causing the death of an individual under ten years of age. Tex. Penal Code § 19.03(a)(8). Based on the jury's answers to the special issues set forth in Article 37.071, Sections 2(b) and 2(e), the trial court sentenced Applicant to death. See Art. 37.071, § 2(g). We affirmed Applicant's conviction and sentence on direct appeal. See Delacruz v. State, No. AP-77,079 (Tex. Crim. App. Mar. 1, 2023) (not designated for publication).
In February 2022, Applicant filed the instant initial writ application in the convicting court, raising thirteen claims for habeas relief. Paraphrased, in those claims Applicant alleges that:
• he was deprived of his federal and state constitutional rights to confront non-testifying DNA analyst Daniel Lindley (Claim 1);
• his trial counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance by failing to: (a) raise timely Confrontation Clause objections (Claim 2), (b) retain an independent DNA expert (Claim 3), (c) present Crime Scene Investigator Christine Ramirez's findings on various issues (Claim 4), (d) retain an independent "CSE/BPA" expert (Claim 5), and (e) cite relevant intervening legal authority in support of Applicant's motion for new trial (Claim 11);
• the State used false and material lay testimony and expert testimony to obtain Applicant's conviction (Claims 6 and 7);
• the State's investigation of the victim's death was so flawed and improper that it denied Applicant of his federal and state constitutional rights to due process, due course of law, and trial by a fair and impartial jury (Claim 8);
• the State did not disclose potentially exculpatory evidence in sufficient time for the defense to use it at trial (Claim 9);
• the trial court erred at the punishment phase because its charge did not inform the jury that, if it was unable to answer any special issue submitted under Article 37.071, Section 2(b) or (e), then the trial court would sentence Applicant to life imprisonment without parole (Claim 10);
• Applicant's appellate counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance because appellate counsel failed to cite relevant intervening legal authority to support direct appeal point of error number 10, which concerned the "12-10 Rule" (Claim 12); and
• Applicant is actually innocent of the decedent-child's murder (Claim 13).
The record before us shows that the trial court held a live evidentiary hearing on Claims 2 through 5 in September 2022. At the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing, the trial court directed the parties to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning all thirteen allegations raised in Applicant's initial writ application. The trial court thereafter entered signed findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning only Applicant's habeas claims 1 through 5.
Because the trial court has not entered findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommendation concerning Applicant's habeas claims 6 through 13, we now remand the case to the trial court for it to do so within 30 days of the date of this order. The trial court's supplemental findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation shall be returned to this Court immediately thereafter.
IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 13th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023.