## 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-82,467-01

EX P ARTE ST ANLEY ORSON MOZEE, Appl icant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. W99-02631-R( A) IN THE 265 DISTRICT COURT T H F ROM DALLAS COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Tex as C o d e o f 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 capital murder and sentenc ed to life imprisonment. The Fifth Court of Appea ls aff irmed his conviction. Mozee v. State , No. 05-00-01260- CR (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec . 14, 2001) (not desig nated f or publication). This Court rec eived Applicant’s Appli cation f o r a Writ of Habeas Corpus filed i n the t rial court on September 11, 2014. Applicant claimed, among other things, that the State violated Brady

v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83 (1963). He arg ued that the State did not disclose ag ree ments it had made2

with jailhouse informants reg arding the resolution of pending char g es or the reduc tion of a sentenc e in exchang e for these informants’ testimony at his trial. The trial co u rt an d the State ag ree d that Applicant was entitled to relief under Brady

. This Court rema nded the habea s application to the trial court to provide the trial prosec utor an opportunity to respond to Applicant’ s Brady claim. On October 26 and 27, 2015, the trial court held an evidentiar y hear ing at which the trial prosec utor testified. Addi t ional evidenc e was also prese nted. The district cler k has not y et supplemented the habea s rec ord with the repor ter’s transcr iption of the hear ings. This Court has only

rec eived a supplement containing the trial court’s finding s of fac t, which conclude that there was no Brady violation. Both Applicant and the State object to the finding s, arg uing that the finding s are not supported by

the habe as re cord. T h e State also indicates that it has discovere d additional exculpatory evidenc e which it believes further supports Applicant’s claims and impeache s the trial prosec utor’s habea s testimony

. Applicant and the State also arg ue that a rec ent case from the United States Supreme Court, W earry

v. Cain , 577 U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 1002 (2016), “provide s g uidance to the courts on issues conce rning suppression of exculpatory evidenc e rela ted to informants,” and ask that the habea s application be

rema nded fo r fu rt her considera tion of Appli cant’ s Brady claim i n light of the additi onal evidence and the W earry opinion. Additionally , the parties indicate that Applicant filed an Amended Application for a Writ of Habe as C orpus i n the t rial court on November 4, 2015, and a S ec o n d Am ended Application for a Writ of Habe as Corpus on J anuar y 15, 2016, along with attache d exhibi ts. I t appea rs that Applicant has raised additional claims, but the District Clerk has not supplemented the habea s rec ord with any additional filings.3

This Court rema

nds the habea s application to the trial court. The trial court shall deter mine whether there have been additional habea s filings, and it shall deter mine what fac tual issues rema in controve rted, including , but not lim ited to, whether there are unresolved Brady issues, unresolved false testimony issues, and unresolved ineffe ctive assistance of trial counse l issues. The trial court shall make additional finding s of fac t and conclusions of law to resolve any controve rted issues. The trial court shall also make any other supplement al finding s of fac t and conclusions of law that it deems re levant and a

ppropriate to the dispositi on of Applica nt’s claims for ha

beas c orpus re lief. 1 Also, if there have been additional habea s filings, the trial court shall order the district cler k to supplement the habea s rec ord with those filings and their exhibi ts. I f there are no such additional habea s filings, then the trial court shall inform this Court. The trial court shall also order the district cler k to supplement t h e h ab ea s rec ord with a copy of the transcr iption from the habea s hear ing alre ady conducte d. This application will be held in abey ance until the trial court has resolved the fac t issues. The issues shall be resolved within 90 day s of this order

. A supplemental t ra n s cr i p t containing all 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 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

14, 2016 Do not publish

T o r e s o l v e t h e c o n t r o v e r t e d i s s u e s , t h e t r i a l c o u r t m a y u s e a n y m e a n s s e t o u t i n T E X . C O D E C R IM . P R O C . a r t
. 1 1 1

. 0 7 , § 3 ( d )

. I t a p p e a r s t h a t A p p l i c a n t c o n t i n u e s t o b e r e p r e s e n t e d b y h a b e a s c o u n s e l

. I f t h e t r i a l c o u r t d e t e r m i n e s h e i s n o t r e p r e s e n t e d b y c o u n s e l a n d e l e c t s t o h o l d a h e a r i n g , i t s h a l l t h e n d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r A p p l i c a n t i s i n d i g e n t
. I f A p p l i c a n t i s i n d i g e n t a n d w i s h e s t o b e r e p r e s e n t e d b y c o u n s e l , t h e t r i a l c o u r t s h a l l a p p o i n t a n a t t o r n e y t o r e p r e s e n t A p p l i c a n t a t t h e h e a r i n g . T E X . C O D E C R IM . P R O C . a r t
. 2 6

. 0 4

.