Opinion
WR-95,055-01
12-20-2023
EX PARTE GEORGE RODRIGUEZ, Applicant
Do not publish
ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS CAUSE NO. CR00001031-F(1) IN THE 214TH DISTRICT COURT FROM NUECES COUNTY
ORDER
Per curiam.
Applicant was convicted under a plea agreement of two counts of intoxication manslaughter and sentenced to two concurrent terms of twenty years' imprisonment. Through habeas counsel, 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 alleged there should be no affirmative deadly weapon finding but such a finding was made. He claimed that the plea agreement was breached, that trial counsel was ineffective, and that his guilty pleas were involuntary. The trial court found that the doctrine of laches barred consideration of the claims. See Carrio v. State, 992 S.W.2d 486 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); Ex parte Perez, 398 S.W.3d 206 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). The trial court made no specific factual findings in support of its laches determination, and there was no response in the record from trial counsel explaining his representation, so this Court remanded.
On remand, the trial court obtained trial counsel's affidavit, which it finds credible. The trial court made findings to resolve the disputed factual issues, and it recommends that this Court deny the merits of Applicant's claims. After making an independent review of the record, which includes habeas counsel's objections, this Court agrees with the trial court's credibility determinations and findings as to the merits of Applicant's claims. See Ex parte Thompson, 153 S.W.3d 416, 420 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Ex parte Reed, 271 S.W.3d 698, 727-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Applicant was aware when he pled guilty that there would be an affirmative deadly weapon finding. The trial court correctly concludes, "The Applicant's plea was knowing and voluntary, the State did not engage in any misconduct or violate any right to due process, and counsel provided effective assistance." This Court adopts the trial court's findings that resolve the factual issues related to the merits of Applicant's clams. This Court does not adopt the trial court's findings regarding laches.
Habeas corpus relief is denied. Copies of this order shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Correctional Institutions Division and the Board of Pardons and Paroles.