Opinion
WR-95,905-01
10-23-2024
EX PARTE CLARENCE JOSEPH, Applicant
DO NOT PUBLISH
ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS CAUSE NO. W-1875874-A IN THE 19TH DISTRICT COURT FROM DALLAS COUNTY
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
In November 2018, Applicant pleaded guilty to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. He received deferred adjudication for a period of five years. In February 2023, Applicant was adjudicated guilty and sentenced to fifteen years' imprisonment. Applicant filed this application for a writ of habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and the district clerk forwarded it to this Court. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.07.
Applicant contends that defense counsel in both the 2018 and 2023 proceedings were ineffective. He alleges that his court-appointed counsel during the 2018 deferred-adjudication proceedings insisted on payment and refused to advocate for him when he was unable to pay her. She did not investigate the case and Applicant's claim of innocence. She did not consult with Applicant and she ignored his repeated assertions that he wanted to go to trial. Applicant claims that counsel insisted that he enter a guilty plea. She told Applicant that the judge would "give him the max" if he did not plead guilty.
Applicant alleges that defense counsel in the 2023 adjudication proceedings had a conflict of interest. Specifically, counsel deliberately placed himself on this case because he had a personal relationship with Applicant's wife, who he wanted to protect from criminal liability. Counsel did not disclose this relationship to Applicant or the court. Applicant contends that counsel failed to investigate, present evidence, or challenge the State's evidence. In particular, counsel did not investigate or present evidence of Applicant's wife's criminal acts and her motives for making false accusations against Applicant. Applicant states that he advised counsel that he was innocent and he did not want to plead true to the violation allegations. However, defense counsel was adamant that Applicant should enter a plea of true. Applicant further avers that counsel erroneously assured him that pleading true to the violation allegations would not expose Applicant to confinement but would merely extend the term of community supervision.
Applicant has alleged facts that, if true, might entitle him to relief. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Accordingly, the record should be developed. The trial court is the appropriate forum for findings of fact. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.07, § 3(d). The trial court shall order trial counsel to respond to Applicant's claim. In developing the record, the trial court may use any means set out in Article 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 wants to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall appoint counsel to represent him at the hearing. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 26.04. If counsel is appointed or retained, the trial court shall immediately notify this Court of counsel's name.
The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether defense counsel's performance was deficient and Applicant was prejudiced. The trial court may make any other findings and conclusions that it deems appropriate in response to Applicant's claims.
The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law within ninety days from the date of this order. The district clerk shall then immediately forward to this Court the trial court's findings and conclusions and the record developed on remand, including, among other things, affidavits, motions, objections, proposed findings and conclusions, orders, and transcripts from hearings and depositions. See Tex. R. App. P. 73.4(b)(4). Any extensions of time must be requested by the trial court and obtained from this Court.