## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS
N O S. A P - 76, 096 & A P - 76, 097

EX PA R TE K A SY LE E M O SLE Y , A ppl i c ant

ON AP P LI CAT I ONS F OR W RI TS OF HABE AS CORP US CAUS E N OS . 9 1 5 8 3 9 - A AND 9 1 5 8 3 8 - A I N T HE 1 7 8 J UDI CI AL DI S TR I CT TH CO URT FROM HA RRI S CO UNTY

P er cur i am . O P I N I O N Pur s u a n t to th e p r o v is io n s o f A rti c le 1 1
. 0 7 o f th e T e xa s Co d e o f Cr im in a l Pr o c edure , the cler k of the trial court transmitt ed to this Court this application for writ of ha beas c orpus. Ex

pa rte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. Ap p . 1 967). Applica nt pleaded guilty

to one cha

rg e of robber y and one multiple-c ount c harg e of ag g ravated sexual assault, and wa s sentence d by a jury to twenty y ear s’ imprisonment f

or the robber

y , and twenty -five y ear s’ imprisonment f or the ag g ravated sexual assaults . The Four teenth Court of Appea ls affirme d his convictions and sente nces. Mosley

v . S tat e , Nos. 14-03-01247- CR and 14- 0 3 -0 1 2 4 8-CR (Tex. App. – Houston [ 14 Dist.] May 17, th 2005, pet. re f’d)
.2

Applicant conte nds, int e r a lia , that his trial counsel both in his orig inal sentenc ing tr ial and
on re- trial rende red i n effective a ssistance. Applica nt alleg es that his first counsel disclosed Applicant’s birth re cords, sc hool rec ords, and psy cholog ical re ports to the trial court without Applicant’s permission, in violation of t he attorney -client privilege
. After his first punishment trial resulted in a hungjury

and mistrial, Applicant had a re- trial on punishment, a t w hich the prosec ution used the c ontents of the rec ords to impeach Applica nt. Applicant’s counse l for the r e-tria l was not
awa re tha t the rec ords had been provided to the trial court by Applicant’s first counsel, a nd was not
awa re tha t the prosec ution had obtained copie s of t hose records from the t rial cour t. Re-trial counse l did no t fi le a pr e -t

ri a l mot ion

fo r d isc ov e ry

of e xtra ne ou s o ff e ns e / ba d a c t e vid e nc e , a

nd did no t f ile a motion to s u p p re s s o r a motion in limine to preve nt the introduction of such e vidence . Re-trial counsel di d not timely

object whe n the prosec utor beg an to cr oss-examine Applicant using the
re c or ds
. The trial c ourt has dete rmined that Applica nt’s first counsel’ s conduct in disclosing the
re c or ds to the c ou rt

wi tho ut A

pp lic a nt’ s u nd e rs tand ingof the c on te nts of

tho se re c or ds wa s d e fi c ie nt. The trial court has also deter mined that Applicant’s re- trial counsel’s conduct in failing to determine that the State had the rec ords in que stion, fa iling to f ile a motion to s uppress or a motion in limine , a n d f a il in g to ti me ly o b

je c t to th e p r o s e c u to r ’ s u s e o f th e r e c o r d s to c r o s s - e xa mi n e A p p li c a n t w as de fi c ie nt. Th e tr ia l c ou rt

fi nd s th a t bu t fo r the e rr or s of bo th c ou ns e l wi th re g a rd to t

he se re c or ds , there is a rea sonable probability that the outcome of the punishment trial on re- trial would have been dif f e r e n t
. W e f

i n d , t h e r e f

o r e , t h a t A p p l i c a n t i s e n t i t l e d t o a n e w d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f p u n i s h m e n t in these c auses. The sentenc es in Cause Nos. 915839-A a nd 915838-A from the 178th J udicial District Court of Har

ris County are reve rsed, and the matters a re r emande d to the trial court f or a ne w trial3

on punishment.

Deliver ed: Fe bruar

y 4, 2009 Do No t Pu

bli sh