## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NOS. WR-87,613-09 through -12

EX P ARTE P EGGY SUE BUTL ER, Appl icant

ON AP P LICATIONS FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS CAUSE NOS. A15412-3, A15473-3, A15474- 3, AND A15475- 3 IN THE 216th DIS TRICT COURT F ROM K

ERR COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Tex as C o d e o f Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of t he trial court transmitt ed to thi s Court these applications for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Ap p licant was convicted of four separ ate delivery of a controlled substance in a drug fre e zone offe nses. She was sentenc ed to twelve y ear s’ imprisonment in Cause No. A15412 and twenty y ear s’ imprisonment in the rema ining cause numbers. The Four

th Court of Appea ls dismiss ed her appea ls. Butler v. State , Nos. 04-17-00497- CR through 04-17-00500- CR (Tex. App.—San Antonio J an. 3, 2018) (not desi gn at ed for publication).2

Applicant contends, among other things, that her trial counsel rende red ineffe ctive assistance beca use he rec klessly advised Applicant to enter open pleas of gu i l t y wh en the State lacke d solid evidenc e of her guilt, failed to conduct an independe nt investigation, failed to file pre- trial motions including motions to suppress the e vidence , failed to c halleng e the leg ality of the State’s evidenc e and pursue a valid def

ense, f ailed to ar gue that the State could not meet its burden of proof, f ailed to reque st an expert to challeng e the State’s evidenc e, failed t o ch al leng e the drug fre e zone alleg ations, failed to object to the amending of the pre- sentenc e investigation repor t, failed to object to A pplicant not be ing allowed to he r withdraw her pleas of guilty , failed to intervie w Applicant’s co-de fenda

nts and other witnesse s, and he a llowed Applicant to wa ive her rig ht to appeal. Applicant has alleg ed fac ts that, if true, might entitle her to relief

. Strickland v. W

ashington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984); Ex parte Patterson , 993 S.W .2d 114, 115 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). In these circ umstances, additional fac ts are neede d. As we held in Ex parte Rodriguez , 334 S.W .2d 294, 294 (Tex. Crim. App. 1960), the trial court is the appropr iate forum for finding s of fac t. The trial court shall order trial counsel to respond to Applicant’s claim of i neff ective assistan ce o f co unsel. The trial court may use any means set out in T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07, § 3(d). In the appropr iate ca se, the trial c ourt may rely on its personal re collection. Id

. I f the trial court elec ts to hold a hea ring , it shall determine whe ther Applica nt is indi g ent. I f Applicant is indige nt and wishes t o b e represente d by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an attorney to repre sent Applicant at the hear ing. T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 26.04. The trial court shall make findin gs o f fact and conclusions of law as to whether the perf ormanc e of Applicant’s tr i al co unsel was defic ient and, if so, whether counsel’s defic ient perf ormanc e prejudice d Applicant. The trial court shall also make any other finding s of fac t and3

conclusions of law that it deems rele vant and appropr iate to the dispositi on of Applicant’s claim for habea s corpus re lief. These applications will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fac t issues. The issues shall be resolved within 90 day s of this orde r. A supplemental transcript c ontaining all aff idavits and int err og atories or the t ransc ription of t he court repor ter’s notes from any hearing or deposition, alongwith the trial court’ s supplemental finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law, shall be for war ded to t his Court within 120 day s of the date of this order. Any extensions of ti me must be re quested by

the trial cour

t and shall be obtaine d from this Court.

Filed: Dec ember 12, 2018 Do not publish