Opinion
NO. WR-78,113-01
03-23-2016
EX PARTE HUMBERTO GARZA
ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS CAUSE NO. CR-3175-04-G IN THE 370TH DISTRICT COURT HIDALGO COUNTY Per curiam. ORDER
This is a post conviction application for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to the provisions of Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 11.071.
Applicant was convicted in March 2005 of capital murder committed in January 2003. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.03(a). Based on the jury's answers to the special issues set forth in the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 37.071, sections 2(b) and 2(e), the trial court sentenced him to death. Art. 37.071, § 2(g). This Court affirmed Applicant's conviction and sentence on direct appeal. Garza v. State, No. AP-75,217 (Tex. Crim. App. April 30, 2008) (not designated for publication).
Unless otherwise indicated, all references to Articles are to the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.
Applicant presented twenty-eight allegations in his application in which he challenges the validity of his conviction and sentence. In Allegation Three, Applicant alleges that trial counsel failed to conduct a constitutionally adequate investigation of mitigating evidence. Specifically, Applicant states that trial counsel relied solely on Applicant's mother to provide him with mitigating information, including locating and contacting witnesses and obtaining school records, and when Applicant's mother failed to produce records that counsel had requested, counsel failed to seek them from other sources. Applicant also states that trial counsel failed to retain a mental health expert to screen Applicant for possible mental disorders and impairments, despite being aware of prior psychological evaluations indicating that Applicant had experienced extreme trauma and suffered from mental health problems.
Applicant has alleged facts that, if true, might entitle him to relief. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). We apply a two-part test for determining whether a defendant has been constitutionally deprived of effective assistance of counsel: (1) deficient performance, and (2) prejudice. See Ex parte Napper, 322 S.W.3d 202, 246 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687). Deficient performance means that "counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the 'counsel' guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment." Id. When trial counsel does not conduct a complete investigation, his conduct is "reasonable only to the extent that reasonable professional judgments support the limitations on investigation." Id. (quoting Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 533 (2003)).
In this case, the trial court found that defense counsel's reliance on Applicant's mother for the mitigation investigation, and counsel's decision not to retain a mental health expert to screen Applicant for possible mental disorders and impairments, did not constitute deficient performance. Therefore, the court did not reach the question of prejudice. However, it is arguable that counsel's failure to obtain any investigative or expert assistance, particularly when Applicant's prior psychological evaluations indicated trauma and mental health problems, constituted deficient performance. See, e.g., Ex parte Napper, 322 S.W.3d at 246; Ex parte Gonzales, 204 S.W.3d 391, 397 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); see also Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 396 (2000).
We remand this application for the trial court to gather information and make specific findings of fact as to whether, but for defense counsel's failure to conduct a more thorough mitigation investigation, the result of the proceeding would have been different. 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 shall be obtained from this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF MARCH, 2016. Do Not Publish