## 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-75,134-03

EX P ARTE DANA ABDOLAHI-DAM ANEH, Appl icant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. W05-00507-W(C ) IN THE 363RD DISTRICT 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 (Tex. Crim. App. 1 9 6 7 ). Applicant was convicted of the offense of ag g rava ted robber

y and sentenc ed to imprisonment for forty y ea rs . T he Fifth Court of Appea ls aff irmed Applicant’s conviction in Abdola h i -D a maneh v. State , No. 05-05-01312- CR (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007) (not desig nated f or publication). Applicant contends that the State withheld favor able evidenc e from the defe nse in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 US 83 (1963). Applicant also alleg es that newly discovere d mitigating evidenc e exists t hat entitles him to a new punishment hea ring

.Applicant has alleg ed fac ts that, if true, might entitle him to r elief. 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 provide the prosec utor with the opport u n i t y to respond to Applicant’s claim that materia l, exculpatory evidenc e was improperly suppressed. 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)

. I t appea rs that Applicant is repr esente d by counsel. The trial court shall deter mine whether Applicant is repr esente d by counsel, and if not, whether Applicant i s i n d i gen t. I f Applicant is indige nt and wishes to be repr esente d by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an attorney to repr esent Applicant at the he aring . 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 conclusi o n s of law as to whether the State withheld materia l evidenc e that Applicant was not the person who planned and direc ted the offe nse. T h e t ri al court shall also make finding s of fac t and conclusions of law as to whether there is a

re as onable probability that the outcome of the punishment phase of Applicant’s trial woul d h av e been differ ent based on the newly discov er ed m itigating evidenc e. The trial court shall also make

an y other finding s of fac t and conclusions of law that it deems rele vant and appropr i at e t o t h e dispositi on of Applica

nt’s claim for ha

beas c orpus 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 of this order

. A supplemental t ra n s cr i p t containing 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, along with the trial court’ s supplemental finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law, shall be forwar ded to this Court within 120 day s of the date of this order . Any extensions of ti me s hall be obtained f

rom this Court.Filed: August 22, 2018

Do not publish