## 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 NOS. WR-88,720-01 & - 02

EX P ARTE JASON EARL WHI TE, App licant

ON AP P LICATIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NOS. W10077-1 & W8888-1 IN THE 355TH DIS TRICT COURT F ROM HOOD 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 these applications for wr i t s o f h ab ea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). In Cause No. CR10077, Applicant was convicted of three counts of ag g ravat ed sexual assault, one count of indece ncy with a child by contac t, and three counts of indec ency with a child by exposure and sentenced to six ty -five year s’ imprisonment, twenty year s’ imprisonment, and eig ht year s’ imprisonment, respe ctively

. In Cause No. 8888, Applicant was convicted of ag g ravated sexual as s au l t of a child and sentenc ed to forty y ear s’ imprison m en t
. Ap plicant’s convictions wer e aff irmed by the Second Court of Appea ls in W hite v. Stat e , Nos. 02-07-089- CR & 02-07-090-CR (Tex. App.—Fort Worth May 29, 2008)(not2

desig nated f

or publication). Applicant contends, among other things, that counsel was defic ient for failing to eff ectively

cross-e x amine the State’ s expert witness, Dr. Jay me Coffman. A

pplicant has alleg ed facts t hat, 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). I t also appea rs that Applicant is complaining about pre- sentenc e jail time cre dit. Ex parte Be nnett , 508 S.W .2d 646 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974). 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 to respond to Applicant’ s claim of ineffe ctive assistance of counsel. I t appea rs that Applicant is repr esente d by counsel. The trial court shall deter mine whether Applicant is repr esente d by counsel, and if not, whether Applicant is indige n t
. I f Ap p licant is indige nt and wishes to be repr esente d by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an attorney to repr esent Applicant at the he aring . T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 26.04. The trial court shall make fi n d i n gs of fac t and conclusions of law as to whether the perf ormanc e of Applicant’s trial counsel was defic ient and, if so, wheth er co unsel’s defic ient perf ormanc e prejudice d Applicant. The trial court shall also make finding s of fac t as whether it has ruled on Applicant’s J udg ment Nunc Pro Tunc that was filed with the trial court on J une 22, 2017, reque sting flat and g ood time c redit acc rued under Applicant’s previous conviction, and if not, the trial court shall indicate the leg al basis for the ref usal to rule on the motion. 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.3

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 o f t his order

. A supplemental transcr ipt 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, 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 t he date of t his order

. Any extensions of ti me shall be obtained f

rom this Court.

Filed: September

12, 2018 Do not publish