## 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-82,572-01

EX P ARTE CHAMEL NICOLE ANDERSON, App licant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. F 09-56401-U IN THE 291S T DIST RICT COURT

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 (Te x . C ri m . Ap p. 1967). Applicant orig inally pleade d guilty in

ex ch ang e for five y ear s’ defe rre d adjudication community supervision. Her guilt was l at er adjudicate d, and she was sentenc ed to ten y ear s’ imprisonment. The Fifth Court of Appea ls aff irmed her conviction. Anderson v. State , No. 05-12-01341- CR (Tex. App. — Dallas, Dec ember 2, 2013, no pet.).2

Applicant contends, among other things, that her trial c o u n s e l r e n d e r e d in e f

f e c ti v e a s s ista

nce 1 during her orig inal plea and at adjudication. Applicant alleg es that her orig inal plea counsel did not visit her immediately afte r her arr est, did not reque st a n examining trial or move for a speedy trial, did not show Applicant the evidenc e aga i n s t h er o r explain the proce eding s to her, did not call defe nse wi t n esses, and coerc ed her into pleading guilty

. Applicant allege s that she was under the influence of mind-altering medications at the time of her plea, and did not understand the conseque nces of

signingthe plea pa

perw ork. Wit h respe ct to adjudication counsel, Applicant alleg es that he disreg arde d the information provided to him by Applicant, did not provide any defe nse strategy or compel the State to prove the alleg ed violations of the conditions of community supervision, did not explain the plea paper work to Applicant befor e she signe d it and altered that paper work after Applicant had si gned it , did not inform Applicant that she could withdraw her plea of “true ,” and did not object to hear say testimony

. Applicant has alleg ed fac ts that, if true, might entitle to relief

. Strickland v. W

ashington , 466 U.S

. 668 (1984); Ex parte Patterson , 993 S.W .2d 114, 115 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). I n t h es e 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

s h al l order trial counsel and adjudication counsel to respond to Applicant’s claims of ineffe cti v e assistance of co u nsel. 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 appr opriate c ase, the trial court may rely on its personal re collection. Id

. I f the trial c ourt elec ts to hold a hearing , it shall determine whe ther Applicant is indig ent. I f Applicant is indige nt and wishes to be repr esente d by cou n s el , the trial court shall appoint an
This Court has review ed Applica nt’s other c laims and finds them to be without merit. 13

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 finding s of fac t and conclusions of law as t o wh ether the perf ormanc e of Applicant’s plea counsel was defic ient and, if so, whether counsel’s defic ient perf ormanc e prejudice d Applicant. The trial court shall make finding s of fac t as to whe t h er the perf ormanc e of Applicant’s adjudi c a ti o n c o u n s e l w a s d e f

ic ie nt and, if so, whether counsel’s defic ient perf ormanc e prejudice d Applicant. The trial court shall also make any oth er 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 i s sues shall be resolved within 90 day s of this order

. A supplemental transcr ipt cont ai n i n g al l 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 forwar ded to t his Court withi n 120 day s of the date of this order

. Any extensions of t ime shall be obtained f

rom this Court.

Filed: January

14, 2015 Do not publish