## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINA L A PPEA LS OF TEXA S NO. WR-83,465-01

EX P ARTE DAVID D. JONES, Appli cant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 1392163-A IN THE 351 DISTRICT COURT ST F ROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R Pursuant to the provisions of Ar t i cl e 1 1

. 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. 1967). Applicant pleade d g uilty to posse ssion of a controlled substance by fra ud and was sentenc ed to two y ear s’ imprisonment. He did not appea l his conviction. Applicant contends that due proce ss was violated and his ple a was involuntary beca use the State subsequently notified him an i n terna l investigation by the Harris County District Attorney ’s Offic e reve aled cer

tain witnesses in this case may have cre dibilit y issues that possibly aff ecte d the2

outcome of this case . The Applicant further contends that, had he known o f t his information, he would not have plea d g uilty

. The State ag ree s relief should be g rante d and acknow ledg es it did notify the Applicant as set out above, howeve r, beca

use an intern a l investigation is pending , it cannot offe r specific details other than acknow ledg ing it would have chosen not to prosec ute the Applicant if “such information was known at the time the applicant was char g ed with the instant offe nse.” The trial court rec ommends relief be g rante d beca

use the State acknow ledg es that, if “such information” had b ee n k n o wn , it would not have prosec uted the Applicant. Howeve r, the trial court has not enter ed finding s of fac t and conc lusions of law reg arding : A. Who are the se witnesses? B. What exactly their testimony would have been and wh y it would not have been cre dible? C. What exactly was the information that was not proper ly passed along t o t he Applicant so he could have m ad e an informed choice whether to plead g uilty or proce ed to trial? D. Why is this information materia l, so that it would have re s u l t ed in the State ref using to prose cute Applica nt? Applicant has alleg ed fac ts tha t, if true, might entitle him to relief

. 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 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). In the appr opriate c ase, the trial court may rely on its personal re collection. Id

. The rec ord ref

lects that Applicant is curr ently repr esente d by counsel. Howeve r, if this is no longer t rue, and if the trial court elec ts to hold a hear ing, it shall deter mine whether Applicant is3

indige nt. I f Applicant is indige nt and wishes to be repr esente d by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an attorne y

to repre sent Applicant a t 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 make finding s of fac t a nd conclusions of law in reg ard to Applicant’s claims that due proce ss was violated in this case and that his plea was involuntary

. The trial court 1 shall also make any other finding s of fac t and conclusions of law t h at it deems rele vant and appropr iate to the disposition of Applicant’s cla im for habe as cor pus relief

. This application will be held in abey ance until the trial court has resolved the fac t issues. The i s s u es s h all be resolved within 90 day s of this order

. A supplemental transcr ipt containing al l aff idavits and int err og atories or the t ransc ription of t he court repor ter’s notes from any hear ing 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. A ny extensions of t ime shall be obtained f

rom this Court.

Filed: September

16, 2015 Do not publish

I f the trial c ourt has conc erns r eg arding the State’s pendinginvestigation of the 1 witnesses, it may

forwa rd any supporting doc umentation to this C ourt under se al.