## 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-85,860-01

EX P ARTE BRANDON JEWEL CORNETT , Appli cant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 1254312-A IN THE 184TH DIS TRICT COURT

F ROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam . A L C A L A , J., concurs withou t opini on. N E W E L L , J., not participating. 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 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of murder and sentenc ed to forty -two y ear s’ imprisonment. The First Court of Appea ls aff irmed his conviction. Cornett v. State , 405 S.W .3d 752 (Tex. App.—Houston [1s t Dist.] 2013). Applicant contends, among other things, that trial counsel rende red i n eff ective assistance beca use he failed to prese nt evidenc e of temporar y insanity

. See T E X . P E N A L C O D E § 8.04(b). Trial counsel responde d in sworn aff idavits, and the trial court found that counsel did not raise temporar y insanity beca

use he did not “discove r any information from any source , including the applicant,2

which supported suc h defe nse or theor y .” 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). As we held i n E x p a r te Rodriguez , 334 S.W .2d 294, 294 (Tex. Crim. App. 1960), the trial court is t h e appropr iate forum for finding s of fac t. The trial court may order trial counsel to respond. The trial court may use any means set out i n T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07, § 3(d). In the appropr iate

case , the trial cour

t may rely on its personal re collection. Id

. I f the trial court elec ts to hold a hearing, it shall dete rmine whe ther Applica nt is indi g ent. I f Applicant is indige nt and wishes to be repr esente d by counsel, the t ri al court shall appoint an attorney to repre sent Applicant at the hearing. T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 26.04. The trial court shall make further finding s of fac t and conclusions of law as to whether , g iven the testimony and evidenc e at trial that Applicant appea red “wild, crazy , [and high] on something,”

was “wa llowing around in the g rounds” and “roc k[i ng ] and roll[i ng ]” on the g rass, and admitted in

a statement to the police that he had share d PCP and coca ine with the dece ased on the evening of the offe nse, counsel was defic ient for not raising temporar y insanity at the punishment phase. The trial 1 court shall also deter

mine whether , had counsel raised temporar y insanity at the punishment phrase , there is a rea sonable probability that the result would have been differ ent. The trial court shall also make any other finding s of fac t and conclusions of law that it deems rele vant and appropr iate to the dispositi on of Applica

nt’s claim for ha

beas c orpus re lief. This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fac t issues. The

Cornett v. State , 405 S.W .3d 752, 754–56 (Tex. App.—Houston [1s t Dist.] 2013). 13

issues shall be resolved within 90 day s of this order

. A supplemental tr an s cr i p t co n taining 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 this order. Any extensions of t ime must be re quested by

the trial cour

t and shall be obtaine d from this Court.

Filed: Mar ch 29, 2017 Do not publish