## 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-89,087-01 AND WR-89,087-02

EX P ARTE REBE CCA STEVENS, Ap plicant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NOS. 5963-A AND 5964- A IN THE 451S T DIST RICT COURT

F ROM K

ENDALL 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 these applications for wr i t s o f h ab ea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant pleade d guilty to two char g es of delivery of a controlled substance in a drug fre e zone, and was sentenced t o fiftee n y ear s’ imprisonment in each c ase, to run c oncurr ently

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

f e c tive assistance 1 and that her guilty pleas wer e not knowing ly and voluntarily enter ed. Applicant alleg es that trial

This Court has review ed Applica nt’s other c laims and finds them to be without merit. 12

counsel failed to investigate, failed to file a pre- trial motion to suppre s s ev i d ence, failed to authenticate audio and video rec ording s, failed to question the cre dibilit y of the informant, failed to challeng e the State’s evidenc e, and failed to investigate or challeng e the drug fre e zone alleg ations. Applicant alleg es that trial counsel persua ded her to plead guilty and sign plea paper work sug g esting that there was a plea agree ment when in fac t there was no plea agree ment, and then failed to prese rve Applicant’s r ight to appe al. The plea paper s in fac t indicate that there was no agree ment as to punishment, but the j u d g ments sug g est that there was a plea agree ment. The trial court’s certific ations of Appli cant ’s rig ht to appea l indicate that Applicant waived her rig ht to appea l, but the plea documents contain no express waiver of appea l. I f these wer e open pleas, Applicant should have reta ined her rig ht to appea l. I f Applicant did expressly waive her rig ht t o appea l, the State must have provided consideration in exchang e for such a waiver , but the rec ords do not ref lect any such consideration. 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 r espond to A pplicant’s claims of ineffe ctive assistance 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)

. I f t he trial court elects t o hold a hearing , it shall deter mi n e whether Applicant is indige nt. I f Applicant is ind i gen t and wishes to be repr esente 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 first supplement the habea s rec ords with transcr ipts of t h e p l ea an d3

sentenc ing proce eding s. I f there wer e any written motions filed and ruled on prior to trial, the trial court shall also supplement the habea s rec ords with copies of such motions. The tr i al co u rt shall make finding s of fac t and conclusions of law as to whether Applicant’s pleas wer e open pleas to the court as the plea paper s sug g est, or wer e enter ed pursuant to plea agree ments as the judgme nts indicate. I f these wer e open pleas, the trial court shall make finding s of fac t and conclusions of law

as to whether Applicant expressly waived her rig ht to appea l, and if so, shall supplement the rec ords with copies of such waiver s. I f Applicant enter ed open pleas to the trial court and di d ex p re s s ly

wa i ve her rig ht to appea l, the trial court shall make finding s of fac t and conclusions of law as t o whether Applicant rec eived consideration in exchang e for such waiver , an d i f so, what such consideration was. The trial court shall make finding s of fac t and conclusions of law as to whether Applicant’s plea s were knowing ly and voluntarily

enter ed. The trial court shall also make finding s of fac t as to whether the perf ormanc e of Applicant’s trial counsel was defic ient and, if so, whether counsel’s defic ient perf ormanc e prejudice d Applicant. The trial court shall al s o m ake any other finding s of fac t and conclusions of law that it deems rele vant and a

ppropriate to the dispositi on of Applica nt’s claims for ha

beas c orpus 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 this Court withi n 120 day s of the date of t his order

. Any extensions of ti me must be re quested by

the trial cour

t and shall be obtaine d from this Court.4

Filed: Oc tober 31, 2018 Do not publish