## 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-93,553-01

EX P ARTE ALONZO RESHAWN P RIMUS, Applicant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 13606-A IN THE 29TH DIS TRICT COURT

F ROM P ALO PIN TO COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R Applicant orig inally pleade d g u il ty to possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance and rec eived defe rre d adjudication community supervision. He was later adjudicate d g uilty and
sentenc ed to forty y ear s’ i mprisonment. The Eleventh Court of Appeals aff irmed hi s conviction.
Primus v. State , No. 11-17-00284- CR (Tex. App. — Eastland April 19, 2018) (not desig nated for publication). Applicant filed this application for a writ of habea s corpus in the county of conviction, and the district cle rk for

war ded it to this C ourt. See T E X
. C O D E C R I M
. P R O C
. art. 11.07. Applicant contends, among other things, that his adj u d i ca t i o n counsel was ineffe ctive for failing to c onvey Applicant’s acc eptanc e of a six -y ear plea offe r in e x chang e for his ple a of true at adjudication, and failing to ensure that Applicant was timely broug ht to court to enter his plea and2

complete the adjudication proce eding s. Applicant’s adjudication counsel has submitt ed an aff idavit responding g ener ally t o Ap p l icant’s alleg ations, but that aff idavit is not sufficie nt to addre ss Applicant’s c laims.
Acc ording to Applicant, the amende d motion to adjudicate that resulted in his eventua l adjudication was filed by the State on April 1, 2016, afte r Applicant was arr ested for new offe nses in Colli n County

. Applicant submits a copy of a hand-w ritten plea offe r dated J une 1, 2016, for six
y ear s’ imprisonment in exchang e for his plea of true at adjudication. Acc ording to Applicant, he told adjudication counsel immediatel y t hat he wanted to acc ept the offe r. Acc ording to adjudication counsel’s aff

idavit, Applicant rec eived and declined a five-y ear plea offe r in open court while both adjudication counsel and the prosec utor wer e prese nt. Howeve r, the habea s rec ord does not contain

a written plea offe r for five y ear s, or a transcr ipt of the proce eding at which Applicant declined such offe r. Applicant was unable to attend multipl e court settings in this case beca use he was arr ested for char g es in both Tarr ant and Collin Counti es. Applicant alleg es that he believed that the six -y ear offe r rema ined open, and was not awa re that the offe r was withdrawn when the newly -ele cted District Attorn ey t o o k office in J anuar y of
2017. Applicant alleg es that he pleade d g uilty to char g es in Colli n County (which wer e alleg ed as violations of the terms of his defe rre d adjudication community supervision in this case ) on May 25, 2017, only beca

use he believed he alre ady had an open offe r of six y ear s in this case , and would there fore serve his eig ht-y ear sentenc es for the Colli n Count y o ff enses concur

rently

. Howeve r, Applicant was sent to TDCJ to beg in serving his Colli n County sentenc es, and was not broug ht back
to Palo Pinto County for the adjudication proce eding s in this case until he filed a pro se motion for a benc h war

rant in September

of 2017. Acc ording to Applicant, he was not aware until that ti me3

that the six -y ear offe r was no longe r available

. Be cause he had alre ady admitted to committing the new of fense s in Coll in County , Applicant believed t hat i t would be futil e to dispute the m otion to adjudicate

. He pleade d true without an ag ree d rec ommendation, and rec eived a forty -y ear sentenc e. Applicant alleg es that adjudication counsel should have immed i ately convey ed his

acc eptanc e of the six -y ear plea offe r to the State, and should have taken steps to ensure that he was broug ht befor e the court to complete the a djudication proce eding s. Applicant allege s that had he known that the six -y ear offe r was no longe r available , he would not have pleade d g uilty to the Colli n County case s, but would have disputed both those cha rg es and the adjudication in this case. Applicant has alleg ed fac ts that, if true, might entitle him to relief

. E x parte Argent , 393
S.W .3d 781, 784 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013); Randle v. State , 847 S.W .2d 576, 580 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Acc ording ly , the record should be developed. T h e t ri al court is the appropriate forum for finding s of fac t. T E X
. C O D E C R I M
. P R O C
. art. 11.0 7 , § 3(d). The trial court shall order the trial
prosec utor to provide an aff idavit detailing any plea offe rs that wer e made in exchang e for Applicant’s plea of true in this case , the date( s) upon which any such o ff er s we re made, whether Applicant declined any such offers in writing or i n open court, whether any such offers were only open for a spec ified time, and the da te(s) upon w hich any such off ers we re w ithdrawn. The trial court shall order adjudication counsel to submit another aff idavit, stating the date( s)
upon which any plea offe rs wer e convey ed to Applicant and the date( s) upon which any such offe rs

wer e declined in open court or in writing

. I f any plea offe rs wer e specific ally open for a limit ed time, adjudication counsel shall state whether Applicant was advised of this fac t. Adj udication counsel shall state whethe r there was any plea offe r open at the time the new District Attorney took office in J anuar y of 2017, and whether he took any steps to have Applicant broug ht b ac k t o P alo Pinto4

County to dispose of the adjudication in th i s m at t er befor e that time. Adjudication counsel shall
state whether he advised Applicant that t h er e was or was not a plea offe r open befor e Applicant pleade d g uilty to the Colli n County char g es on May 25, 2017. I n developing the rec ord, the trial
court may use any means set out in Article 11.07, § 3(d). I f the trial court elec ts to hold a hear ing, it shall deter

mine whether Applicant is indige nt. I f Applicant is indige nt and wants to be repr esente d by counsel, the trial co u rt s h all appoint counsel to repr esent him at the hear ing. See T E X
. C O D E C R I M
. P R O C
. art. 26.04. I f counsel is appointed or reta ined, the trial court shall immediately notify this Court of counsel’s name

. The trial court shall supplement the habea s rec ord with copies of the transcr ipts of any hear ings at which Applicant declined a plea offe r on the rec ord, or any written documents showing that Applicant dec lined a plea offe r for his plea of true at adjudica tion in thi s case . The trial court shall make finding s of fac t and conclusions of law as to whether adjudication counsel’s perf ormanc e

was defic ient and whether Applicant was prejudice d. The trial court may make any other finding s and conc lusions that it deems a ppropriate in response to Applica nt’s claims. The trial court shall make findings of fac t and co n clusions of l aw within ninety day s from the date of this order

. The district cler k shall then immediately forwa rd to this Court the trial court’s finding s and conclusions and the rec ord develope d on rema nd, including, among other things, aff idavits, motions, objections, proposed finding s and conclusions, order s, and transcr ipts from hear ings and depositions. See T E X
. R. A P P
. P. 73.4(b)( 4). Any extensions of time must be reque sted by the trial cour

t and obtained f

rom this Court. Filed: Mar ch 16, 2022 Do not publish