( ' ·. No. ______________________ _ 

IN THE,, 

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

IN RE CANDY HILL HUGHES 

MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS (PRO SE) 

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: 

Comes now Candy Hill Hughes, who files this motion and will 

show the following: 

(1) That Mr.Hughes request to file a writ of mandamus in this 

court. 

(2) That this court ~rant Mr.Hughes motion for leave in order 

for him to file his wr~t of mandum~s. 

Wherefore Mr.Hughes prays that this Honorable Court Grants his 

motion for l~ave of court to file a writ of mandamus. 

Respectfully· submitted: 

Candy Hill Hughes#1596685 

Hughes Unit 

RT.2 Box 4400 

Gatesville,Texas.76597 

U.S.A· 

c~~Lu~\b 

DATE: 12-i-2015 

\L-'15- 2-0\S t .\\.\\ 

RECEIVED IN 

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

DEC 10 2015 

. ; 

Abel Acosta, Clerk 
CAUSE NO. 1169973-B 

Candy Hill Hughes IN THE 230TH JUDICIAL 

TDCJ-ID# 1596685 

RELATOR 

v. DISTRICT COURT OF 

Chris Daniel COUNTY DISTRICT CLERK: 

IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, 

RESPONDENT HARRIS COUNTY ,TEXAS 

A. PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS 

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: 

Comes now,Candy Hill Hughes ,Relator, pro se in the abovestyled and numbered cause of action and files this Original 

Application For Writ of Mandamus, pursuant to Article 11.07 

Sec. 3(c) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, and would 

show the Court the following: 

1. 

B. RELATOR 

1.01 Candy Hill Hughes ,TDCJ# 1596685 is an offender 

incarcerated in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and 

is appearing pro se, who can be located at Hughes Unit 

Rt.2 Box 4400 Gatesville,Texas.76597. 

1. 02 Relator has exhausted his remedies and has no other :::;: ,:; 

adequate rem~dy at law. 

1.03 The act sought to be compelled is ministerial, not 

discretionary in nature. TCCP Art. 11.07 Sec. 3(c) requires 

Respondent to immediately transmit to the Court of Criminal 

Appeals a copy of the application for writ of habeas corpus 

any answers filed, and a certificate reciting the date upon 

which that finding was made, if the convicting court decides 

that there are no issues to be resolved. No copy of the 

application for writ of habeas corpus, any answers filed, and 

1 
a certificate reciting the date upon which that finding was made 

have been transmitted to the Court of Criminal Appeals. Had such 

documents been transmitted to the Court of Criminal Appeals by 

Respondent as required by statute, Relator would have received 

notice from the Court of Criminal Appeals. 

2. 

C. RESPONDENT 

2.01 

D. 

3.01 

3.02 

Respond~nt,Chris Daniel ,in his capacity as District Clerk 

of Harris County,Texas has a ministerial duty to receive and file 

all papers in a criminal proceeding, and perform all other duties 

imposed on the clerk by law pursuant to TCCP Art.2.21, and is 

responsible under TCCP 11.07 Sec. 3(c) to immediately transmit to 

the Court of Criminal Appeals a copy of the application for writ 

of habeas corpus, any answers filed, and a certificate reciting 

the date upon which that finding was made if the convicting court 

decides that there are no issues to be resolved.Chris Daniel 

District Clerk, Harris County may be served at his place of 

business at1201 Franklin Street (77210) Houston,TX.:_:_:__:_ 

3. 

VIOLATION OF ART. 11.07 OF THE TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 

The Respondent violated Article 11.07 Sec. 3(c) of the Texas Code 

of Criminal Procedure by failing to provide a copy of the 2DD1~2D 

application for writ of habeas corpus, any answers filed, and a 

certificate reciting the date upon which that finding was made to 

the Court of Criminal Appeals within the time prescribed by law 

and within a reasonable time from the date on which the documents 

were requested to be transmitted. 

Requests for the transmittal of the application for writ of ~E~~s 

habeas corpus, any answers filed, and a certificate reciting the 

date upon which that finding was made by Relator to-Chris Daniel 

District Clerk, Harris County, by mailed letters dated 11-13-2015 

2 
. ' 

11-21-15 ;pursuant to Art. 11.07 Sec. 3(c) of the Code of Criminal 

3.04 

:3.05 

Procedure. True and accurate copies of the above letters are 

attached hereto as Exhibit"A" through "B" and are also 

incorporated by reference herein for all purposes. 

To date, Relator has recei~ed no response from Respondent 

regarding Relator's request for transmittal of a copy of the 

application for writ of habeas corpus, any answers filed, and a 

certificate reciting the date upon which that finding was made 

to the Court of Criminal Appeals. 

As is clear from Relator's letters, Relator has repeatedly put 

Respondent on notice that Relator seeks the transmittal of a 

copy of the application for writ of habeas corpus, any answers 

filed, and a certificate reciting the date upon which that findin 

was made to the Court of Criminal Appeals and that such records 

are required by the Court of Criminal Appeals to act on Relators 

writ of habeas corpus. Relator has gone well beyond any ~~Cii 

re~uirement or obligations imposed upon him by the Texas Code of 

Criminal Procedure~ lnt~ofulri~tSto.Rilahor's efforts, Respondent 

has wholly failed to comply with the Texas Code of Criminal 

Procedure, Art. 11.07 Sec. 3(c), is acting in bad faith, and has 

also failed to afford Relator the professional and common ~0 

courtesy of any written responses to his correspondence and~~~--

requests. 

Art. 11.07 Sec. 3(c) clearly states that "UiJf the convicting 

court decides that there are no such issues, the clerk shall 

immediately transmit to the Court of Criminal Appeals a copy of 

the application, any answers filed, and a certicate reciting 

the date upon which that finding was made. Failure of the court 

to act within the allowed 20 days shall constitute such a finding 

3 
T Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 11.07 Sec. 3(c). a 

Respondent is in violation of this procedure, ministerial 

duties, and thus the laws of this state. 

4. 

D. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Relator,Candy Hill Hughes 

pro se, respectfully requests a finding that the Respondent , 

did not transmit documents to the Court of Criminal Appeals 

within a reasonable time after the date they were requested 

and that Relator brought this litigation in good faith and has 

substantially prevailed. Relator prays for an Order directing 

Respondent to transmit copy of the application for writ of 

habeas corpus, any answers filed, and a certificate reciting 

the date upon which that finding was made to the Court of 

Criminal Appeals as directed in Art. 11.07 Sec. 3(c) of the 

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure and as requested in Relators 

letters( Exhibit A-B). 

Respectfully Submitted, 

By: Candy Hill Hughes 

RELATOR 

UNSWORN DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE 

I swear under the United States Constitution that the 

foregoing is true and correct: Executed on this~12-j-2015 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

\'L-<"6- ZD\S"" c..\t-HCandy Hill Hughes 

Hughes Unit 

Rt. 2 Box 4400 

Gatesville,Texas.76597 u.s.A 

I hereby certify that a true copy of the above Application 

For Writ Of Mandamus was served on the Clerk of the Texas 

Court of Criminal Appeals by placing a copy in the U.S.mail 

on this the ~d day ofDecember 2015. 

(M.)t'! 

RELATOR 

ft~ll ~ 

4 
HARRIS.COUNTY DISTRICT CLERK 

1201 FRANKLIN St. 

P.O.BOX 4651 HOUSTON,TEXAS~77210-4651 

HUGHES UNiT 

RT.2 BOX 4400 GATESVILLE,TEX~S.76597 

NOVEMBER ~3,2015 

RE: CAUSE No.1l69973-B 

(ErParte Candy Hill Hughes) 

Dear,Clerk 

·.~'. 

This is to place you under· notice that I have filed· an 

application for writ of habeas corpus in.the· above enti-tled ' - ' 

and numbered cause. It has been over (2) years since the date 

in which I fiU~athe application. Please forward my appli~a tion 

for writ of habeas corpus to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. 

My information is ~s follows. Thank you for your time in 

advance to tpis matter. 

Best Regards :_*·~tlQb 

**CJ*tNtt\\\~ (PRO SE) 

. Exhibit A 
CANDY H. HUGHES 

HUGHES UNIT 

RT.2 BOX 4400 

GATESVILLE,TEXAS.76597 

HARRIS COUNTY DISTRICT CLERK 

1201 FRANKLIN St. 

P.O.BOX 4651 

HOUSTON,TEXAS.77210-4651 

NOVEMBER 21,2015 

RE: CAUSE No.1169973-B 

(Ex Parte Candy gfll Hughes) 

Dear,Clerk 

This letter is being written to inform you that this is my 

second request in having you forward my application for writ of 

habeas corpus to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals please. 

My information is as follows. Thank you for your time in advance 

to this matter. 

Best Regards: :::t:\Sl~ 

CAuWtt~\l~ 

(PRO SE) 

Exhibit B 
EX PARTE 

CANDY HILL HUGHES, 

Applicant 

Cause No. 1:169973-8 

§ IN THE 2301

h DISTRICT COURT 

§ OF 

.• § ' HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS 

STATE'S ORIGINAL ANSWER 

The $tate of Texas, by and through its Assistant District Attorney for 

i' ........ - ·' . ,'I, 

Harris County, files this, its original answer in the above-captioned cause, 

having been serve·d with the original application for writ of habeas corpus, 

pursuant to TEx. CoDE CRIM. PRoc. art. '11.07 (West 2013), and would show 

the following: 

I. 

@applicant is confined pursuant to the judgment and sentence of 

the 2301

h District Court of Harris County, Texas, in cause number 1169973 

(the primary case), where a jury convicted the applicant on August 17, 

2009 of the felony offense of murder.@ applicant also pled true to two 

enhancement paragraphs, which the jury found true. The court assessed 

punishment at confinement for sixty (60) years in the Texas Department of 

Criminal Justice- Institutional Division (TDCJ- I D). 
• 

" 

The First Court of Appeals issued an opinion affirming the applicant's 

conviction on October 11, 2012: Wall v. State, No. 01-11-00600-CR, 2012 

WL 4857360 (Tex. App. -Houston [1st Dist.] October 11, 2012, pet. ref' d.). 

II. 

The State denies the fc;ctual allegations made in the instant 

application, except those supported by official court records, and offers the 

following additional reply: 

Reply to the Applicant's First, Second, Third, 

Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Grounds for Relief 

In his first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth grounds for relief, the 

applicant claims that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at 

trial. Specifically, the applicant claims trial counsel: 

1. did not give the applicant a copy of his case file; 

2. created a conflict of interest by agreeing to not give the applicant a 

copy of the offense report; 

3. failed to subpoena Wesley Brown as a witness; 

4. failed to make an opening statement; 

5. failed to subpoena an expert to refute the medical examiner's 

testimony regarding the complainant's autopsy; 

6. failed to invoke TEX. R. EVID. 614 ("the Rule") at trial; and 

2 
. . ' 

7. was generally ineffective. 

·Writ Application at 6-10, 6. 1 

The United States Supreme Court held in Strickland v. Washington, 

466 U.S. 668, 686 (1984), that the benchmark for judging any claim of 

ineffective assistance of counsel is whether counsel's conduct so 

undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial 

cannot be relied upon as having produced a just result. The Court in 

Strickland set forth a two-part standard, which has been adopted by Texas. 

See Hernandez v. State, 726 S.W.2d 53, 57 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986). First, 

the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that 

counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of 

reasonableness. Mitchell v. State, 68 S.W.3d 640, 642 (Tex.· Crim. App. 

2002); Narvaiz v. State, 840 S.W.2d 415, 434 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) 

(citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. at 688)~ Reasonably eff~ctive 

assistance of counsel does not require error-free counsel, or counsel 

whose competency is judged by hindsight. Mercado v. State, 615 S.W.2d 

225, 228 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981 ). Second, there must be a reasonable 

probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the 

1 The pages in the writ application appear to be duplicates, in no particular order, after pages 6-10. The 

State is listing the pages as they are numbered in the application; hence, the second page 6 is the 

second page 6 as one proceeds through the pages of the writ application. 

3· 
' . 

proceeding would have been different. /d. A "reasonable probability" is "a 

probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome." /d. 

Article I, Section 10 of the Texas Constitution also requires that a 

criminal defendant receive effective assistance of counsel. However, the 

Texas constitutional provision does not create a standard that is more 

protective of a defendant's rights than that established in Strickland. Black 

v. State, 816 S.W.2d 350, 357 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (citing Hernandez v. 

State, 726 S.W.2d 53 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986)). Therefore, an analysis of 

the effectiveness of the applicant's trial counsel in the primary case 

pursuant to the Strickland standard satisfies both the federal and state 

constitutional requirements. 

The court will not use hindsight to second-guess a tactical decision 

made by trial counsel, nor will the fact that another attorney might have 

pursued a different course support a finding of ineffectiveness. Solis v. 

State, 792 S.W.2d 95, 100 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990); Blatt v. State, 588 

S.W.2d 588, 592 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). When evaluating an ineffective 

assistance claim, the reviewing court looks at the totality of the 

representation and the particular circumstances of the case. See 

Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). In 

reviewing counsel's performance, the court indulges a strong presumption 

4 
' ' 

that he acted within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance. 

/d. 

Failure to Make an Opening Statement 

In his third ground for relief, the applicant alleges ineffectiveness for 

trial counsel's failure to make an opening statement" at trial. Writ 

Application at 8. 

The record is clear that trial counsel declined to make an opening 

statement. (3 R. R. 7). However, few matters during a criminal trial could 

be more imbued with strategic implications than the exercise of this option. . ! . 

Calderon v. State, 950 S. W.2d 121, 127 {Tex. App. - El Paso, 1997): An 

opening statement can give the State a preview of the defense strategy; 

therefore, trial counsel may make a tactical decision not to present on, and 

such a decision does not amount to ineffective assistance. For this reason, 

the applicant's third ground for relief is without merit, and should be denied. 

Alleged Failure to Subpoena Witnesses 

The applicant alleges in his second ground for relief that counsel 

failed to subpoena defense witnesses in the instant case. Writ Application 

at 7. Specifically, the applicant alleges that trial counsel failed to call 

witness Wesley Brown to testify at trial. /d. The applicant also alleges 

5 
counsel failed to subpoena an expert witness to refute the medical 

examiner's testimony. /d. 

When challenging trial counsel's failure to call a witness, "the 

applicant must show that [the witness] had been available to testify and that 

his testimony would have been of some benefit to the defense." Ex parte 

White, 160 S.W.3d 46, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). The applicant fails to 

show that either of his proposed witnesses would have been available, or 

that either would have provided testimony that would have been of some 

benefit to his defense. The applicant merely makes a conclusory statement 

as to what testimony Wesley Brown would have given, and does not offer 

even a conclusory statement as to what, if any, testimony an expert would 

offer that would have helped his defense. Writ Application at 7. Therefore, 

the applicant fails to meet his burden, and his second ground for relief 

should be denied. 

Failure to Invoke tfthe Rule" 

The applicant alleges, in his fifth ground for relief, that counsel failed 

. to invoke Texas Rule of Evidence 614 (also known as "the Rule") before 

trial testimony began, resulting in defense witnesses being present in the 

courtroom during testimony. Writ Application at 10. The applicant goes on 

6 
to allege that this resulted in defense witnesses hearing each others' 

testimony, thereby bolstering their own testimony. /d. 

The applicant is mistaken. After the applicant was arraigned, but 

before testimony began, the trial court asked whether either side wished to 

invoke the Rule. (3 R.R. 4). Immediately, counsel repiied, "Yes, Your 

Honor." (3 R.R. 4). Thereafter, the trial court admonished witnesses, as 

they were sworn in, that the Rule had been invoked, and explained how 

that affected the witnesses. (3 R.R. 4; 5 R.R. 3). 

The applicant fails to allege sufficient facts which, if true, would entitle 

him to relief. Ex parte Maldonado, 688 S.W.2d 114, 116 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1985). Therefore, the applicant's fifth ground is without merit and should 

be denied. 

Genera/Ineffectiveness 

In his sixth ground for relief, the applicant alleges that trial counsel 

was generally ineffective overall. Writ Application at 6. 2 

First and foremost, in habeas proceedings, the applicant must allege 

sufficient facts, which if true, would entitle him "to relief. Ex parte 

Maldonado, 688 S.W.2d 114, 116 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985). Even if sworn 

to, an applicant's allegations are insufficient to overcome the State's 

2 The pages in the writ application appear to be duplicates, in no particular order, after pages 6-10. The 

State is listing the pages as they are numbered in the application; hence, this page 6 is the second page 

6 as one proceeds through the pages of the writ application 

7 
denials. Ex parte Empey, 757 S.W.2d 771, 775 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). 

The burden of proof is on the applicant, and the standard of proof is by a 

preponderance of the evidence. Ex parte Adams, 768 S.W.2d 281 (Tex. 

Grim. App. 1988). 

The applicant fails to clearly articulate any legal basis for relief in his 

sixth ground for relief, and therefore fails to allege sufficient facts, which, if 

true, would entitle him to relief. Ex parte Maldonado, 688 S.W.2d at 116. 

The applicant merely expresses his feeling that his attorney's 

"representation as a whole fell below and accepted standard of 

reasonableness" without providing any factual or legal support for his 

allegations. Writ Application at 6. Therefore, the applicant's sixth ground 

for relief is without merit, and should be denied. 

Conflict of Interest 

The applicant alleges in his first and seventh grounds for relief that 

counsel faced a conflict of interest which rendered counsel ineffective at 

trial and on appeal. Writ Application at 6. Specifically, the applicant 

alleges in his first ground for relief that trial counsel's agreement with the 

State to not release copies of the offense report to the applicant was a 

conflict of interest. /d. 

8 
Ineffective assistance of counsel may result from an attorney's 

conflict of interest. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 692. "An actual conflict of 

interest exists if counsel is required to make a choice between advancing 

his client's interest in a fair trial or advancing other interests (perhaps his 

own) to the detriment of his client's interest." Ex parte Morrow, 952 S.W.2d 

530, 538 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (citing James v. State, 763 S.W.2d 776, 

779 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989)). However, in order for an applicant to 

demonstrate a violation of his right to reasonably effective assistance of 

counsel based on a conflict of interest, the applicant "must show (1) that 

defense counsel was actively representing conflicting interests, and (2) that 

the conflict had an adverse effect on specific instances of counsel's 

performance." /d. (citing Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (1980)). 

Furthermore,_ in a case where counsel is appointed (as in this case), a 

defendant has the responsibility to bring to the court's attention any basis 

on which he believes an appointed counsel should be replaced. Malcom v. 

State, 628 S.W.2d 790, 791 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982)(citing Webb v. State, 

533 S.W.2d 780, 784 n. 3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976)). In that manner, the trial 

court can be afforded the opportunity to decide if the defendant can carry 

the burden of proving that he is entitled to a change of counsel. /d. 

9 
The applicant fails to show, nor can the State find any evidence that 

the applicant brought the matter to the court's attention. Furthermore, the 

applicant fails to demonstrate any actual conflict of interest existed between 

the applicant and counsel. Finally, the applicant fails to demonstrate that 

any alleged conflict in the primary case had any adverse effect on specific 

instances of counsel's performance. The applicant cannot show that he 

was denied the effective assistance of counsel due to any conflict of 

interest. Therefore, this aspect of the applicant's first and seventh grounds 

for relief are without merit and should be denied. 

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel on Appeal 

At the conclusion of the applicant's trial, trial counsel J .. Sidney 

Crowley continued to represent the applicant on appeal. See State's Writ 

Exhibit A, Notice of Appeal in cause number 1169973. The applicant's 

seventh ground for relief alleges that Crowley's appointment as both trial 

and appellate attorney rendered him ineffective, as evidenced by Crowley's 

failure to raise ineffective assistance of counsel claims against himself. 

Writ Application at 10. Therefore, it appears the applicant's true claim is 

ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failure to raise ineffective 

assistance of trial counsel as a point of error on appeal. 

10 
It is established that to support an applicant's allegation that appellate 

counsel was ineffective for failing to assign a particular point of appeal, the 

applicant must meet the standard set out in Strickland. Smith v. Robbins, 

528 U.S. 259 (2000); Smith v. Murray, 477 U.S. 527 (1986); Ex parte 

Butler, 884 S.W.2d 782, 783-784 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994). The Texas Court 

of Criminal Appeals employs the same analysis for ineffective assistance of 

counsel on direct appeal as it applies to trial counsel: (1) "determine 

whether counsel's performance was deficient," and (2), if the performance 

was deficient, "determine whether there is a reasonable probability the 

results would have been different but for counsel's deficient performance." 

Ex parte Jarrett, 891 S.W.2d 935, 938 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994 ), overruled on 

other grounds; Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). 

Therefore, a showing of both deficient performance and prejudice is 

required. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687. 

An attorney "need not advance every argument, regardless of merit, 

urged by the appellant" and to do so would disserve the very goal of 

vigorous and effective appellate advocacy. Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 

(1985) (emphasis in original). An applicant must demonstrate that 

counsel's decision not to raise a particular point of error was objectively 

unreasonable and that there is a reasonable probability that, but for 

11 
I . . ' 

counsel's failure to raise that issue, the applicant would have prevailed on 

appeal. Robbins, 528 U.S. at 285-86 (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687-91, 

694 ). "A reasonable probability· is a probability sufficient to undermine 

confidence in the outcome" of the proceeding. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694. 

Nevertheless, and without waiving any of the foregoing arguments or 

authorities, the resolution of the claims requires information concerning trial 

counsel's strategic decisions, and confidential communications with the 

applicant. Therefore, the State believes that further factual investigation is 

necessary to determine the merit, if any, to the applicant's ineffective 

assistance claim. 

Reply to the Applicant's Eighth Ground for Relief 

In his eighth ground for relief, the applicant claims the trial court erred 

by appointing trial counsel as appellate counseL Writ Application at 7. 3 

The applicant filed notice of appeal on August 17, 2009, in which he 

also notified the court that he was indigent, and wished the trial court to 

appoint appellate counsel. See State's Writ Exhibit A, Notice of Appeal in 

cause number 1169973. In this same notice, counsel noted that he would 

continue to represent the applicant on appeal. /d. The applicant signed 

this notice, although he had the option to ask counsel to withdraw from his 

3 The pages in the writ application appear to be duplicates, in no particular order, after pages 6-10. The 

State is listing the pages as they are numbered in the application; hence, this page 7 is the second page 

7 as one proceeds through the pages of the writ application. 

12 
. . 

case, and accept a different appellate attorney from the trial court. The 

applicant's signature on a form requesting trial counsel to remain on as 

appellate counsel is prima facie· evidence that the trial court did not err in 

allowing the applicant his choice in appellate counsel. 

Moreover, the purpose of habeas corpus is to ·determine the 

lawfulness of confinement and not to serve as the substitute for an appeal. 

Ex parte Clore, 690 S.W.2d 899, 900 {Tex. Crim. App. 1985); Ex parte 

McGowan, 645 S.W.2d 286, 288 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983). Habeas corpus 

will lie only to review jurisdictional defects or denials of fundamental or 

constitutional rights. Ex parte Watson, 601 S.W.2d 350 {Tex Crim App 

1980). The applicant's claims are not of a jurisdictional defect nature, nor 

are these claims regarding a fundamental or constitutional right. 

It is well settled that a writ of habeas corpus should not be used to 

litigate matters which should have been raised on direct appeal. Ex parte 

Banks, 769 S.W.2d 539 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989); Ex parte Townsend, 137 

S.W.3d 79 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). Generally, factual and evidentiary 

challenges are "record claims" and should be litigated on direct appeal. Ex 

parte Gardner, 959 S.W.2d 189, 198-200 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (op. 

reh'g). There is no reason why the applicant could not have made these 

complaints in the trial court, and on direct appeal. However, he failed to do 

13 
·so. They are therefore waived, and he is now procedurally barred from 

further litigation of these issues. See id. 

Therefore, applicant has failed in his burden of proof at habeas, and 

even assuming he meets that burden, applicant's claim is not cognizable 

because he should have raised it on direct appeal. The applicant's eighth 

ground for relief is without merit and should be denied. 

Ill. 

The State respectfully requests that the trial court designate the issue 

of ineffective assistance of counsel as an issue that still needs to be 

addressed. The State respectfully requests that the trial court order J. 

Sidney Crowley to file an affidavit addressing the instant allegations of 

ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. 

14 
. ~ 

. ' ..... 

IV. 

Service has been accomplished by sending a copy of this instrument to the 

following address: 

Candy Hill Hughes 

#1596685 -Telford Unit 

3899 State Highway 98 

New Boston, TX 75570 

SIGNED this 25th day of November, 2013. 

Respectfully submitted, 

. Flores 

Assistant District Attorney 

Harris County, Texas 

1201 Franklin,·6th Floor 

Houston, Texas 77002 

(713) 755-6657 

(713) 755-5240 (fax) 

Texas Bar ID #24059760 

15 
Cause No. J/{eqct7 3 

THE STATE OF TEXAS 

{), 170)1 )/; (/ 1-fu~ ~ AooA/ _____ _ 

Z-3rfn+ District Court I County Criminal Court at Lalv No. ___ _ 

Harris County, Texas 

NOTICE OF APPEAL 

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COUKf: 

On aeiu5T 12, 'ZCO 0 (date), the defendant in the above numbered and styled cause gives 

NOTICE. APPEAL of his conviction. 

The undersigned attorney (check appropriate box): 

o MOVES to withdraw. 

~VISES the court that he will CONTINUE to represent the defendan 

Date 

AUG 1 7 2009 

Time: ----:-:---c-:-;:;--.,....-;:------ H~rris c0:..m~.y. Tr~Y,i::lS 

By Deputy 

The defendant (check all that apply): 

Attorney (Printefllame) I 

05{70200 

State Bar Number 

f 40 1-.pU{SJana... 

Address 

'"], 2:,- Z:?S- 59ff)1 

Telephone Number 

.o---R:E"PRESENTS to the court that he is presently INDIGENT and ASKS the court to immediately APPOINT 

appellate counsel to represent him. 

~s the Court to ORDER that a free record be provided to him. 

o ASKS the court to set BAIL. 

Accordingly, Appellant ASKS the Court to conduct a hearing, make findings, and enter an Order 

Granting the requested relief. 

Defendant ·(Signature) Defendant' rinted name 

SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME ON ---r1~rA~U"""G"T--1-r7~2_0_09 _______ _ 

By Deputy District Clerk of Harris County, Texas ----rt-=-rtl-....... ----cYf--------------

Page I of2 

STATE'S 

EXHIBIT 

A 

l 
ORDER 

·· o~ ·~It?! o9 

r 1 

the Court conducted a hearing and FINDS that defendant I appellant 

0 IS NOT indigent at this time. 

~ IS indigent for the purpose of 

~employing counsel 

0 paying for a clerk's and court reporter's record. 

~mploying counsel or paying for a clerk's and court reporter's record. 

The Court ORDERS that 

o Counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED /DENIED. 

o Defendant I appellant's motion (to be found indigent) is DENIED. 

o Defendant's I appellant's motion is GRANTED and 

0 (attorney's name & bar card number) 

is APPOINTED to represent defendant I appellant on appeal. 

0 The COURT REPORTER is ORDERED to prepare and file the reporter's record without charge to 

defendant I appellant. 

BAIL IS: 

o To CONTINUE as presently set. 

o DENIED and is SET at NO BOND. (Felony,Only) 

DATE SIGNED: ----'6~/_.,J.....:.'D+/_C)_a.r....J ___ _ I I 

. ' 

! • 

'· 

Page 2 of2 
• 

.. _;~~ 

I 

·~ 

f 

IWMeo~~RI& 

............ \ld'U ... "' ;•.... .· '*ftw, 

,..... ~. "'p;.RR!s ........ l A... c ...... ~"-······· . 0. .. ..... I~ .l" . . .. , 0~ .. ~ I ::J / {:{. \ ':A. E .0 ! \ ·~ ! u l \ ...(. : \ . I . \Y,:\ ;"-f: .. . ' a \~ ··.. . 'f:rns \ .,.,.. Q,~'·· "'· .,J> ,... . -

I .... &'!. ..... __ ........ · c::)/,:0 

..... 0 " 

"'·· {.r # ... ,f'. ,.,.~ .. ,· .................... , 

!t Chrte Da"lal, Dl&trlol Clerk of Harris eeun)y, l'exsa.~ certify that 

mlela a true and correct copy of t11e oMglnal rocord nled and or reoordod 

In my omce, elec!tonlcally or hard copy, a ell appeal'& on IIIIa data. 

Wltn888 my official hal)d on«Ue9f of ofDD04hle 

/