Opinion ID: 50684
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: State Habeas Court

Text: Regarding the issue certified for appeal, the state habeas court found the following: Although Applicant’s argument . . . that he was denied effective assistance of counsel based on trial counsel’s alleged failure to present sufficient mitigating evidence claims that some of Applicant’s family members were available and willing to testify on his behalf at the punishment phase, . . . Applicant does not provide any specifics concerning which family members were allegedly willing to testify on his behalf. 3 In particular, he does not name said individuals, give their relationship to Applicant, or explain why he now claims that they had expressed a willingness to testify. Nor does Applicant attach any type of affidavit or other form of factual support for his claim that some of his family members would have been willing to testify. He likewise does not, in any way, suggest what the testimony of his family members would have been. . . . . Trial attorneys Rogelio Garza and Daniel R. Reyes have provided credible information that two of Applicant’s family members had been present during the punishment phase of trial; that they had, however, refused to be called to testify; and that Applicant had not wanted them to call his family members to testify. Said attorneys have likewise given credible testimony, by affidavit, indicating that they had made their decision concerning this topic based on their trial strategy; that they had conferred with Applicant before doing so; and that Applicant had agreed with said decision. Mr. Garza and Mr. Reyes have further provided credible affidavit testimony that they had presented all to [sic] the mitigation evidence which they had had available to them; that their decisions concerning use of said evidence, including Dr. Pinkerton’s testimony, had been based on their trial strategy; that they had conferred with Applicant before making said decision; and that Applicant had been in agreement with their decision. Ex parte Diaz, No. CR-1464-99-G(1), paras. 1201-1204, 1208-1210 (370th Dist. Ct., Hidalgo County, Tex. Apr. 23, 2003) (proposed order containing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommendation). Based on these findings, the court concluded that Diaz was not entitled to habeas relief on the claim at issue here.