1 ... SeeT EX . R. A PP . P. 47. 4.
2 ... C o n c u rr e n tl yw i th h i s a p p e l l a te b ri e f, G l a ss fi l e d a “M o ti o n T o A b a te A p p e a l, ” r e q u e sti n g tha t t h e ap p e a l b e ab a ted for a n ev i d e n ti a ry h e a ri n g to al l ow hi m t o de vel op “ t es t i m ony t hatgoe s t o t he hea rtoft he atto rn e y /c l i ent r el at i ons hi p a nd t he st at us of t he app el l ant as an i nf or m ed cl i ent att he t i m e o f



## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOFTEXAS FORT WORTH
NO . 2- 07- 111- CR
L AW R E NC E B . GL AS S AP P E L L ANT V . TH E STA TE O F TEXA S STA TE

----- ----- -- FR O M CRI M I NA LDI STRI CT CO URT NO . 3 OF TARRA NT CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### M E M ORANDU M OP I NI ON 1

----- ----- -- I. I N T R OD U C T I ON A ppe l l antLa w r enc e B. G l as s pl ea ded gui l t y t o t he of f ens e of m ur der , an d th e tri a l c o u rt s e n te n c e d h i m to fi fte e n y e a rs ’ c o n fi n e m e n t . T h e tri a l c o u rt
ce rt i f i ed t hat G l as s had t he r i ght t o app ea l , and t hi s app ea l f ol l ow ed. Because 2t r i a l . ” Th i sc ou rtd e ni e d Gl a s s ’ sa ba t e m e ntm ot i on b y or de ro n Dec e m be r17,

2 0 0 7 ; th e re fo re , w e n e e d n o t fu rth e r a d d re s sh i sa b a te m e n t a rg u m e n ts . 2 t h e S t a t e c o n c e d e s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u rt e r r e d b y ma k i n g a f i n di ng t hatt he
m ur derw asa “3g of f ens e, ” w e w i l l m odi f y t he j udgm ent t o de l et e t hi s f i ndi ng. S eeActo fM a y 29, 1993 , 73r d L e g. , R. S. , c h. 900, § 4 .0 1 , se c . 3g , 1993 T e x . G e n . L a w s 3 7 1 6 , 3 7 1 8 (cu rr e n t ve rsi o n at T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . A NN . a rt . 42. 1 2 , § 3 g ( V e r n o n S u p p . 2 0 0 7 ) ) ( a d d i n g mu r d e ra sa 3 g o f f e n s e ) . F o rt he
r ea so nss etf ort h be l ow , w e w i l l af f i r m t he j udgm entasm odi f i ed.

II . A L L EGED I NE F F ECT I VE A SSI STANC E I N P RI OR H AB EAS I n a si ngl e poi nt , G l ass ar gues t hathi s habeas counsel [ a di f f er entl aw yer th a n the o n e rep res e n ti n g h i m i n the m u rde r ca se ] w a s i n e ffec ti v e b yfai l i n g to pu r s uea s ub s e qu e nt11. 072 w r i to fh a be a s c or pu sc on c e r ni ng a p r i or1947
con vi ct i on f or bur gl ary of a h ous e b ec aus e t hatco nvi ct i on pr eve nt ed G l as s f r om b e in g p r o b a t io n -e lig ib le f o rt h e m u r d e ra t is s u e h e r e . G la s s r a is e d t h is is s u e in t h e t r ia l c o u rt b y a r g u in g in a p r e t r ia l m o t io n t h a t h e s h o u ld b e p e r m it t e d t o f ile
a n a ffid a v i t f o r p r o b a ti o n c o n c e rn i n g th e m u rd e r c h a rg e a n d to h a v e th e j u ry con si derpr oba t i on bec aus e hi s 194 7 con vi ct i on w asunc ons t i t ut i ona l i n t hathe
c o m m i tted the o ffen se w h e n h e w a s sixte e n y e a rs o l d an d b e c a u se the S tate
w a i te d u n ti l h e w a ss e v e n te e n to i n d i c t h i m . Th e t r i al courtal l ow ed G l ass t o put on evi dence i n suppo rt oft hi s pr et r i al
m ot i on. G l ass i nt r odu ced t he t est i m ony o fhi s habeas counsel i nt o evi dence,3 ... G l a s sw a sb o rn o n N o v e m b e r 1 2 , 1 9 3 0 . 4 ... Fi ft y- ei ghtye ar s had el aps ed bet w ee n Gl as s’ s bur gl ary c onvi ct i on a nd t he t i m e t hat he f i l ed hi s 11 . 07 appl i cat i on f ora w r i tofhabeas cor pus; G l ass i n i ti a te d th e h a b e a sp ro c e e d i n g a fte r h e w a si n d i c te d fo r m u rd e r. 3 a s w e l l a s do c um e nt a ry e vi de nc e e s t a bl i s hi ng t hef ol l ow i ng . I n Fe br ua ry 2005, G l as s f i l ed an “Appl i ca t i on F orA W ri tO fH abe asCor pusSeek i ng Rel i efFr om F i n a l F e l o n yC o n v i c ti o n U n d e r C o d e O f C ri m i n a l P ro c e d u re , A rti c l e 1 1 .0 7 ,”
w hi c h a r gu e d t ha th e h a d be e n i m p rop e r l y c ha r ge d a sa n a du l tf ort he1947 bur gl ary of f ense because he w as onl y si xt een w hen t he of f ense w as com m i tt ed
a n d b e c a u s e t h e S t a t e w a i t e d u n t il h e w a ss e v e n t e e n t o in d ic th im . T h e 3 di st r i ctcourtr ecom m ended t o t he court o f c rim inal appeal s t hatno habeas
r eli e f b e g r ant ed, and t he courtofcr i m i nal appeal s subsequent l y di sm i ssed G l a ss ’s 1 1 .0 7 h a b e a s a p p l i c a ti o n o n the g rou n d tha t G la s s ’ s c o m m u n i ty
su pervi si on ha d ne verbe en r evo ke d. C o n s e q u e n t ly , G la s s t h e n f ile d a n a rt ic le 4 1 1 .0 7 2 w ri t a p p l i c a ti o n . T h e c o u rt o f c ri m i n a l a p p e a l sa l s o d i s m i s s e d G l a s s ’s 11. 072 w r i tap pl i ca t i on, buti n a co ncu r r i ng s ta te m e n t , Jus t i ceJoh ns on exp l a i n e d t h a td i s mi s s a l wa sr e q u i r e d b e c a u s e ( 1 ) t h e t r i a l c o u rt , t he p ro s e c u to r, a n d th e d i s tri c t c l e r k ’so ffice h a d a l l m i s ta k e n l ytre a te d G l a s s ’s 11 . 07 2 w r i tas an 11 . 07 w r i t ; ( 2) G l ass had f ai l ed to pl ead col l at er al
con se que nce s f r om t he al l ege dl y i m pr ope rco nvi ct i on t o a voi d di sm i ss alon t he gr oundst hatt he se nt enc e h e w a s p ur port edl y s t i l l on p r oba t i on f orha d l ong4

si nce ex p i r e d ; a n d ( 3 ) Gl a s s ’ s c o mp l a i n t t h a t h e h a d b e e n s i x t e e n wh e n he
c o m m i tted the b u rglary a n d tha t t h e c o u n ty w a i ted u n ti l h e w a s s e v e n tee n to i n d i c t h i m s h o u l d h a v e b e e n r a i s e d o n d i re c t a p p e a l fro m th e b u rg l a ry c o n v i c ti o n . Ex parte Gl ass , 203 S. W . 3d 856, 857 ( Te x. C ri m . App . 2006 ) ( di sm i s s i n g h a b e a sc o r p u sa p p l i c a t i o n ) ( J o h n s o n , J . , c o n c u r r i n g ) . J u s t i ce John so n w r ot e, “ I ti s t o be hope d t hat , sh oul d a ppl i ca ntf i l e a not herap pl i ca t i on unde rA rt . 11. 072 , t he cou rt , t he st at e , a n d t he cl er k w i l l r es pond appr opr i at el y. ” Id . G l as s’ s hab ea s cou ns elt es t i f i e d a t th e pr et r i alhe ar i ng t hati n l i ghtof Jus t i ce John so n’ s st at em ent , i t w as hi s i nt ent t o f i l e ano t her art i cl e 1 1 .0 7 2
w r i tofhabeas cor pus but t hathe had no tdone so a t th e tim e o ft he pr et r i al h e a ri n g . Based o n t hese f act s, G l ass now ar gues i n hi s sol e poi nti n t hi s appeal f ro m h is m ur derconvi ct i on t hathi s 19 47 bur gl ary convi ct i on w as “u nco ns t i t ut i ona l ”— t her ef or e h e s houl d ha ve bee n pr oba t i on- e l i g i bl e i n t he
m u r d e rc a s e — a n d t h a th ish a b e a sc o u n s e l’s f a i l u r e t o f ile a s e c o n d a rt ic le 11. 072 w r i tco nce r ni ng t he bur gl ary c a seof f ens e t o m ak e h i m pr oba t i on el i gi bl e i n t he m ur dercase const i t ut ed i nef f ect i ve assi st ance ofcounsel . G l ass bas eshi s unc ons t i t ut i ona l i t y ar gum ent so l el y on t he U ni t ed St at esConst i t ut i on. The l aw i s w el l es t abl i sh ed, how ev e r, t hatno r i ghtex i st s unde rt he5 ... W e r ec ogni z e t hata st at u to ry ri ghtt o a ss i st anc e o fco uns el , w ho

m u s t b e e ffe c ti v e , e x i s ts i n T e x a s fo r d e fe n d a n ts s e n te n c e d to d e a th . S ee T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . A NN . a rt. 1 1 .0 7 1 , § 2 (V e rn o n S u p p . 2 0 0 7 ). 5 U ni t ed St at esConst i t ut i on t o a ss i st anc e o fco uns eli n a h a bea s pr oce edi ng. See Colem an v. Thomps on , 501 U. S. 722, 754, 111 S. Ct . 2546, 2567 ( 1991) ( “The r e i s no c ons t i t ut i ona l ri ghtt o a n a tt or neyi n s t at e p os t - con vi ct i on p r o c e e d in g s [; ] . . . [c ]o n s e q u e n t l y , a p e t it io n e rc a n n o tc la im c o n s t it u t io n a lly i n e ffe c ti v e a s s i s ta n c e o f c o u n s e l i n s u c h p ro c e e d i n g s .” ); Ex parte Graves , 70 S .W .3 d 1 0 3 , 1 1 3 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 2 ) (sa m e ); Marti nezv. Johns on , 255 F .3 d 2 2 9 , 2 4 0

– 4 1 (5 th C i r. 2 0 0 1 ) (sa m e ), cert. denied, 534 U. S. 1163 (2 0 0 2 ). The cou rt s hav e e xpl ai ned t hat w hen a pr oce dur al def aul t r es ul t s f r om

5
a tt or ney er r orw i t h r espectt o a pr oceedi ng i n w hi ch t her e i s a const i t ut i onal ri g h t to c o u n s e l , th e n th e S ta te b e a rsth e u l ti m a te re s p o n s i b i l i tyfo r th e e rro r (a
n e w tri a l i s re q u i re d ). S e e, e .g ., Co lem an, 50 1 U . S . at75 4, 11 1 S . C t . at 25 67 . But w hen a pr ocedu r al def aul tr esul t s f r om att or ney er r or w i t h r espect t o a pr oce edi ng i n w hi ch t her e i s no c ons t i t ut i ona l r i ghtt o c o u n s el , t hen t he St at e b ea r s no res p o n s i bi l i t y t o e ns ur e t hatt he def end anti s r epr es ent ed by
com pet entco uns el , an d i ti s t he def end antw ho m us t bea r t he bur den ofan y p ro c e d u ra l d e fa u l t e rro r. Id. , 1 1 1 S . C t . a t 2 5 6 7 . B e c a u s e t h e r e i s no r i ght und ert he U ni t ed S t at es C onst i t ut i on t o assi st ance ofcounsel i n a habeas p r o c e e d in g , t h e r e islik e w is e n o p a r a lle l r ig h t t o e f f e c t iv e a s s is t a n c e o fc o u n s e l. Ex parte Graves , 7 0 S .W . 3 d at 1 1 3 . C o n se q u e n tl y , G l a ss ’s atte m p t t o col l at er al l y at t ack hi s 19 47 bur gl ary convi ct i on o n i nef f ect i veness- of

- habeas-6 ... G l as s doe s notar guet hatan y r i ghtt o c ouns eli n ha bea s pr oce edi ngs

e x i s ts u n d e r a n yp ro v i s i o n o f th e T e x a sc o n s ti tu ti o n . C f. Gri n o l s v. S tate , 74 P. 3d 889, 895 n. 47 ( A l as ka 2003 ) ( r ec ogni z i ng du e p r oce ssr i ghtt o e f f ec t i ve a s s i s ta n c e o f c o u n s e l i n h a b e a sp ro c e e d i n g u n d e r s ta te c o n s ti tu ti o n ). 6 coun sel gr oun ds t hr oug h t he ap peal oft he pr esentm ur derconvi ct i on f ai l s. 6 S e e, e .g ., Co lem a n, 5 0 1 U .S . a t 7 5 4 , 1 1 1 S . C t. a t 2 5 6 7 . W e th e re fo re o v e rr u l e G l a ss ’s so l e p o i n t. III. S ECT I ON 3 G F I NDI NG Th e t r i al courtm ade a f i ndi ng i n t he j udg m e n t th atG l ass had been

“ c o n v i c te d o f [a n ] e n u m e ra te d o ffe n s e u n d e r a rti c l e 4 2 .1 2 s e c ti o n 3 g C .C .P .” Th e Stat e concedes t hatatt he t i m e G l ass com m i tt ed t he m u rd e r, i n A ugu st 1 9 7 9 , m u r d e r w a s n o t a 3 g o ffe n s e . S eeA c t o f M a y2 9 , 1 9 9 3 , 7 3 rd L e g ., R. S. , ch . 900, § 4. 01, s ec . 3g, 1993 Tex. G en. La w s 371 6, 3718 ( add i ng
m u rde r as a 3 g o ffen se ). A c c o rding l y , w e m o d i fy th e tr i a l co u rt ’s j u d g m e n t t o d e l e te th e 3 g fi n d i n g . SeeT EX . R. A PP . P . 4 3 .2 (b ). I V. C ON C L U S I ON H avi ng m odi f i ed t he t r i alco u rt ’ s j udgm entt o de l et e t he 3g f i ndi ng a nd havi ng ov er r ul ed G l ass’ s sol e poi nt , w e af f i r m t he t r i al court ’ s j udg m entas
m o d i fi e d . Se eid . SU E W A LKER J U S T I C E PA N EL F: LI V I N G STO N , D A U PH I N O T, an d W A LKER, JJ. DO NO T P UBLI SH T EX . R. A PP . P. 47. 2( b)7

DEL I VERE D: M a y 8, 2008