## 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 NO. WR-86,343-01

EX P ARTE BRANDON SCOTT COPP OCK, A ppl icant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. W12-27931-L(A) IN THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 5 F ROM DALLAS COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R Pursuant to the provisi o n s o f Ar t icle 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of sex u al assault of a child and sentenced to twenty y ea rs ’ i mprisonment. The Fifth Court of Appeals aff irmed hi s conviction. Coppo ck v. State , No. 05-13-00908- CR (Tex. App. — Dallas, April 20, 2015) (not desig nated f

or publication). A p p li c a nt c o ntends, among other things, that his trial counsel rende red ineffe ctive as s is ta n c e 1

This Court has considere d Applicant’s other claims and finds them to be w ithout merit. 12

beca use counsel failed to object to the introduction of extraneous offe nse evidenc e on the basis that the State had not pr ovided the requisite notice of intent to introduce the evidenc e, failed to r equest that t h e S t at e elec t which act( s) it would rely upon to prove the char g e, failed to investigate and challeng e the collection of evidenc e by the State, failed to c all available witnesses for the def ense, and fa iled to present available witnesse s and evide nce in mitiga tion of punishment. Applicant has alleg ed fac ts that, if true, might entitle him 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 t o Ap p l i cant’ s claim of ineffe ctive assist ance of counsel. 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 c ourt elec ts to hold a hearing , it sha ll de termine whether Applicant is indigent. I f Applicant is indige nt and wishes to be repr esente d by counsel, the tri al co u rt 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 cour t s h al l make finding s of fac t and conclusions of law as to whether the perf ormanc e of Applicant’s t ri al counsel 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 and 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. This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fac t issues. The issues shall be resolved within 90 day s o f t h i s o rder

. A supplemental transcr ipt containing all3

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, along with the trial court’ s supplemental finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law, shall be for war ded to this Court withi n 120 day s of t he date of this order. A ny extensions of ti me must be re quested by

the trial cour

t and shall be obtaine d from this Court.

Filed: Mar ch 1, 2017 Do not publish