## 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-86,227-01

EX P ARTE TERRENCE ANTHO NY ROUND TREE, Ap plicant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. WRIT09024 IN THE 196TH DIST RICT COURT

F ROM HUNT 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 g uilty to ag g rava ted assault of a public serva nt in e x chang e for

ten y ear s’ def

err ed adjudication c ommunity supervision. His community supervision was later revoke d and he was adjudicate d guilty and sentenc ed to ninety -nine y ear s’ imprisonment. The Fifth Court of Appea ls aff irmed his conviction

. Roundtree v. State , No. 05-09-00837- CR (Tex. App. — Dallas, J une 16, 2010) (not desig nated for publication).2

Applicant contends, among other things, that his orig inal plea was not knowing ly and 1 voluntarily

enter ed bec ause he was not compe tent and did not understand the conseque nces of the plea. Applicant alleg es that he was evaluated and deter mined to be incompetent befor e he was finally adjudicate d g uilty , and was sent to V ernon State Hospital to be restore d to c ompetency

. He alleg es that he had a long history of para noid schizophrenia, which should have rai s ed conce rns about his competenc y to enter the orig inal plea despite trial counsel’s adv i ce t o t h e contra ry . Applicant also all ege s t hat his adjudication counsel was ineffe ctive for failing to prese nt evidenc e of his mental health issues and financ ial difficulties during the adjudication proce eding s. Applicant has alleg ed fac ts that, if true, might entitle him 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 and adjudi cation counsel to respond to Applicant’s claims of involuntary plea and 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. 1 1

. 0 7 , § 3(d). I n the appropr iate case , the trial court may rely on its persona l

rec ollection. Id

. I f the trial court elec ts to hold a hea ring , it shall determine whe ther Applica nt is indi g ent. I f Applicant is indige nt and wishes t o b e represente 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 fi rs t s u p plement the habea s rec ord with copies of the written admonishments give n to Applicant at the time of his orig inal plea, and with transc ripts of the plea

This Court has review ed Applica nt’s other c laims and finds them to be without merit. 13

and adjudication proce eding s. I f Applicant was deter mined to be incompetent at any time during the plea or adjudication proce eding s, the trial court shall supplement the habea s rec ord with all available docum e nta

ti o n reg arding this deter

mination and any subsequent restoration to competenc y . The trial court shall then make finding s of fac t and conclusions of law as to whether there was any indication that Applicant might not have been competent to enter his orig inal plea. The trial court shall make finding s of fac t as to whether Applicant was advised at the time of his orig inal plea of the nature of the char g es, the applicable punishment rang e, the rig hts he was waiving and the conseque nces of his plea. Specifica lly , the t rial court shall make finding s as to whether Applicant was advised that he would be fa cingthe entire punishment rang e for the offe nse if he w ere later a djudicated guilty

. The trial court shall also make finding s of fac t and conclusions of law as to wh et h er t he perf ormanc e of Applicant’s trial counsel and adjudication 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 fa ct and c onclusions of law that it deems rele vant and appropr iate to the dispositi on of Applicant’s c laims for habe as cor pus relief

. 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 sup p l em en t al t ranscript 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 for war ded to this Court within 120 day s of the date of this order. A ny extensions of ti me must be re quested by

the trial cour

t and shall be obtaine d from this Court.

Filed: F ebrua

ry 15, 2017 Do not publish