Court Opinion

ID: 4067622
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-09-29 23:25:15.174063+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:32:40.058910
License: Public Domain

~o. \0\D'~'d..l\- (\,
·f
                                                                                                   B, ZtO- of
                               'I\1 \\\E.
             ~\K\ 0\= C.J~l.KI~~ 1\.\>~Ek\...S

                            t\usn~ .\UI\S

             k     '\C.:.   ~M'\1.ill \...N'\b\-1\ f\LC..O\>,\~ I
                              \\1:~\\b"'~~~

                 ~e...'\\\\!>\,~()\- \,.! d\ ~   M.(\·{'\ck ffi.\1~
     \=ca- ~ ':lR~~ -..k\.~\C.:,(L\ \)~~'\\-\c\ <.t \\o.n-\s. \_ourt\.'1
               1\e\itl-L. \LD\ C.Oc\t..> o~ G-\w'-· ~roc....
              h~~~~c'\ LoU\-'\- Lr~'tf\.\"o..\ \lo, \0\()'~·l:-\- [\_

                                                                      ~0.~\o-..... La.-r.'\0\"'*   f\\clwr,
                                                                      ~U-'1.\Y~ 0\~~.Yrr:so\

                                                                        f\~,.\. . s~\.\u. \x\".tt-
                                                                         1 otoo ~ "'- 1S ~--\
                                                                         ~~'\'\.t~'\ , \~. \""\"lOS

                                                                                            RECEIVED IN       .
                                                                                    COURT OF CRiMINALAPPEALSl

                                                                                           SEP 0 1 2015
                                                                                      An.\ AcOSla;·Gie~
    '\he., Ut'\&"t.rs\~1\.e..A. ~t..'h'\:io~u- J ~\b                   <&{..)   1 t)-\- ~tJ:...DKl c..:e.r\\~t.S ~\.o.\::   -\1\.w -\o \louJ\'":.\ \\s.\-~.
\)ttSCf\.S.         o•c\.t\. C..l'\.'h"t\~ "'a..V-t..;   C\"'-   \v"'\-<,-·e.-~ \.1'\. \tL oui:c..oYV'LJ ofc '\h\:::. CA:s..L1~~ ~-~~~~U\-\-n\\~~

at-L    m.oA(..., \t"-         o,~c\.o-- ~ho:lc ~Ll iuc\.~'t.S o\. \h\s <:..DUr-'\: VV\U.~ e..vo\uo.\~ ~o~i1\:.\e..> d\::.~_o\~{:~c.n.\\~~

0\~ \~s.o,_\.

       ~().m.\~ ~M\)\'\..'t' t\.\c...oi""~ t -\·~.t:., ~L\:~'\·\oY\~.x·.
              'Se.. ~~e..s..~-\-a..\:~~y,,
        \>l'""i::>
         ~a.t.\... S'\:',\-u. lir,~
         ~DloD t-K -~r~\'-\

          b\L,'\'\.lh'-~ ~-L [I.I.Ob

       \'"-u S-\co_\:u o-\- \e.)(o.S 1 C.OtH\--\'/ o\ \\mT~S.                        Q\'\.d.   \\s
         C..O\.lY\~ 'E_'i 0-~\0-t'{.S. - ~::.\s\m·'*: h~$\r\c.,"\: f\:t-\:6f"V9
          \   Jb \ ~r-a"-\..\~""' 1 ~u th.., (oDD
              1

          \\oll::."'To~' ';\~os .tl 0()~

         \~1'\ot-ab\u            l-'\o.r·c..,   t.cu~u- ~ ~\..\~~ \)~\~~~'~
              :t;l.BI"'· ~\~'\:t-\c:.:t·        t.out-'t
              \L.\3L. Cx~-r."-\•"'-o\. -1us.-\\tL ~u­
                  \ ll.() \ ~n:n·"-~\,·""

               \\oushv-. ,\x., I I OD'l.

          ~t... ~~tti(},-.f.A" •t\nn'\~~ Lclf\j\A« 1\.\cb'("'f'. ,'nu-t..'b~ ttr-\-~C\(.S. ~o.'\. ""-- \~ \,\t~t:.~ ox,A
  ~C\S 'ho wru., -\--o \'~o.\-...£.J C.O~ks to ~el~\lu- '\b ~ Jutl.~u at-.~ fu.s~s.~t\-\: \J;str\c..-\- f.\.~or-r•Oj
   Cl\"\c\_       \"\ut,'\.b\'i ·:~e.\~\.i..S.-\ -\\'\o..'\: '\-k~:i.. \\t.h\ol-o.b\0 C.ou~-"\' SU~~t_C\.d_ ~\s \~uk_. +o O~LH-c\_ V'e..\rt\b,~ ...
   Q   Chn.,'\.t.L -to \)r-D~ vJ~k h\~ \)eH\:\of'\ .

                                                                                       ..
                                                                                        \\
                                 ----------------~· \\

\A~~LE o~ J\.U\1\0~\ll:.S - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -   \\i

                                                                      \.

                        ------------:----------- \, ~..

GD~CLUS1b~--------------------------------------------­
 ~\~\'>B-.\~'L ·.
1,.;" ~;e..~ C..O~n.lQo:\e..d
                     '=3
                              C..On--\:<'.~'C\U' f\,'\'\.rh·~s\ \...i'\\t\ .1"\tr..\~ l.c~-~.,
                                                                        :0:\               T
 (....\l\ t .·lc\ "\S'O ,~\o\- b'd.. (~\--. ~-~-. \'\B6\ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - · ~

1_,"'   \:'~ \i.L\\y ,~·~\ \=,"J..A '5AS,5'-\"\ (~G\".\qsl\ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___..

 Un:tt~~ S-\-n-\r..s      V.   ~t~\5-or-.: bO?:. \=.'J.A      \\43 7 \\l\!a ('5-\\-. (),,··,     l'\1~\ - - - - - - - - - · ~,4

 \e.\cu.s ~\~e...s o~ ~~~(?1\o.-\·e~ ~'"~r..r.l1.H"U , Ru\(..) """i ~.\..\ ts\ ---~-------· J..~

 \ex.o.s.. ~. . .u.\e..::.:. a-\ ~\~~\\u'\:~     \)t"oul...\l\-e_., ~u'\e.... 'l'~,b _____________ ~
                                                    ~bb .~o, \D\D~'J....l.\ .. "
                                                           ~l\\   \\\"f_
                                    ~ COU\t.\ C"J~ C...U~1.\U\.L 1-\~\)E.I\.\...,S
                                                    1\.\ ~U~'l'l.tJ ~

                                                                                  \=\\.D~ \Wf;;.. ",):1.~\\\   b1S\\\')f.ALS:

       c.o~t:S ~O'W htwu.E~ ~o"-lT /\Len~~ 1'\he..: ~"-'\:.,\\a,'"~, ~r(:) :s.>L, u.~'-d.. '~F"u\\~ t't\.t)'-~€..iSI
-\h_~ \\6N11~a..\.\E:~ c..nur\- -\t, \Ssu.-t.J          0..   Wt-tt o-\ \~~dt'L'f'i\.U!:> 01\.d_ D~A-<-r-" -\h.L n\-.
                                                                  l..
                                                --\ \lKiS ~1.t.\lo~ '6~1\\F._ t-t\~}..t\
          ..._\u~\s.d~d~·o·~" c~ 4\r,~s,. Lot..,t~\ \s. \n.\ID~t\ ~Ut;SL~r""~ -\-c. 1\ri:;~k \\.,{il o~ ~.L\ru.s                             LoA(.)
  rA      Cdw,~y,a_\ \)~ou"-ure...:.> , ~e..~\\\ov\-u-' \.s t...U\t"·ut\\y ·~n ~\:CA.-\:u \..lls\oO..~ n.'\:- -\-he_. W.\Lcl.S ~~r\:­
  l'f\Ll'-.'\.   o\   c_,:,m~.·'\t\.\ --lus..-\;ce..,~ ll\:s.'\"\\:u.'t~nf'Q\ b~\1\s\tw-.. Clf\~ hos \ l W'\~hl. cu:..c..e..s.s -\o \eY.a.S 5\-o..~
   La..w boo"-s. a.,,c\. ,-~e..sts '\ho:\- '\h',s.                       C.oL.\.r-t \ ~bt.rol\'f C:.UI\.S'true...   \-'\~S. ~\wt\~''""ns \n \i~kt· a\.
   \.\a.~i'l.t.S v. Kf._1tl.if I L~ ()t\      u.s ."'5\ <\ 15 ~ \. ( \'\1 ~ .
                                                                  11..

          f\~p\~cn,._'\:- ~.:-,. ~ \\~o.\\y <::.6 1'1.~~~-...ut ~u,·su.m\t '\-o ~\u ~Utt~1't\f./1~ artc\. St.n~\t..n.c.L cy\: ~L m-n\
  \)~s.-\f"~et· C..L~>ur-\- o-\: ~\c,rt'\S C.Oul\~y ,\-e..~,\n tnusL \'\0, \CJl03l_~ 1 w\\-trL ~\~\~c::.at~WGLS. Co~­
   ·v ic:.."t~ by J..ury on ~ove.~r                ';).3 , '~S             ~e..lo ''-'I c,~~ o{ c.c,~~a..\ rr\Ur-'d u-. M'te.r ~J'->
                                                                   {0\- {h{..J
  jur:-y's ~\N\\n~ a-\~.\~\\, -\:h.t.. \r-ict.\ C..Ourt- a.s~e.c.\ 1\.~~l~c.n~'\:s t-Un~sh~ n:t coV\.{\'1'\<..M.-tM...'-t-
   ~or-- \'~~ tt"-1. 'id"\u \f.\Lc..s \J~o.!"'\:m.-{n-...'\- o-\· Cr\1'1\~o.\ ~us\\c..L- 't.~~'\-u--t·:eH'Qt \J~v~ic.w·-...,
                                                                    \     .
    \hu Ynu't't~t\,. teut-t c& 1\~~w..\s.       0.1\S.u.)e.x-   f\~~\~<:a.~S a.~~~~c::..o...\ a~~v\;c. .nr-~.
        \b~ \ssut.S. L.>~-e..... ""~'\~o.\ \~ de..s\~no...'\-u\ ~w~~ua.,,\ '\-o \ u. C..o~T:. C..Kl.Y\., ~roc_.. a~.
  \\,()-l. § '~(~\.1....~\e_d,\IL ~O.M.i.fi.."-1                 \,   d-0\~ t't\n.~::.. Lou\4- t!1::.·\-c,,.\:,\~s.hul ll">~ \e'L.oS ~,u\tAJ
   1\~~~\o..-\:e... 'Y\'"bc.du\'e...J § l·~ . l.\ ( ~\ ~'ho..'\: o~ ~ \B\s.-\: Ao~ ~\)"1\,.-\:\'\L AQ\L> o~ \~~'\: o~*~
   0.~~\\Ul.~~ts'<"--.   \,y '\\-..u ~-\-1±\u ere 0..         ~()s\-- Lot\.\1 ~c~\D\"- 0.~\)\\ CA't~t.l'"\.. -for l.JJt~ d~ h~ C\u-\~,.,~\.. f\t\.1 'N\.~~DV\S. ~' e.\l:\-e..N\t>~"< o~ --t\ l\"\fJ
M.~ ~L~\~ \f\ \~u C.-our't CJ~ Cs\'f~~~u.\ {\~~a.\s hlo\"L ~ ~~\\''o..-\\o"" ~~\~-d.a.'f
 ~er~a~:·-c ~         . . ,f\. \). \3..S..
        'I.e". -.\-\,t..- \\"\'&\-o.d c.o..~e.... '\~ ~~~~i'\.C\.\:tl                          ~SSll-LS ~\o~osu\. \.'( ~ S\:a.~ we_,. .~ ttc:i\- n.sn\"ec\.
.h'L Cl.C..C..(>'!"Ao.,'\(.L)        u)~\.... \,~ .~ :~ . ..Y~-~. Qf\c\ 1\~~\~ c_nr-.'\: \--~.os.~--'c ~-u"'- f\o'\:J.~e.c\ ~a..-\: ~,e._. ~'-\:-o±~
~c-..s \e.L.f.l\le..~               1 \hu S\:CL'\:~ \'"\CD .\~\d CH'\. ou:\:- o-\-'*~ h'\£...; l~e.s.~ol\S.~
't-o ~~\\c__c,KtS. a.~~tc..n..\\oV'\. 1 "«\\'C\~ a..~'\u- \n~"c~o.\.\'1 \'"'U:£.~"'"'~ ~\~ 0.~\\\~c.o...\~ot' <~'1\c\. ~,\\
 \tos~-\: t"e..so\\l~ ~L> cie.~'~"-o.:\:d \ s.~u.~:--\\"L ~\:~Ls. 0\\~,,o..\                                                     n.\1\S.ux.r         S.hbu.\ c\... 1{\0-\: b
 \ t\clU~u\_ \1\~D -\hf-J lwf.U>\'"'c\_ ~p t                           0\\."--C • -\:\\_~   ~:kct\:L \'lns, \a_~\{.!\_ ~D \""~!:\~.~I'\               OCUYI"'c\_O..'i\.C..U

 -\o l\t\:\dL \\, Dl. \he....                               ~\:~e.... ho.s. \'S At\:~s. ~o c~'l\'::.LJ)~.x".

           ~\"C\.\.\'1 /\\-..0 S.\n.\u 1 ~1"'\. ~S. ou-\:-c~-\\~                                   of"':i''Q\   n.\'\S..wu- ~Lh-\\'\f.re.\u...\:.s. -u, c\ei,~'C'\ct\e..:>
 \\,~      ;\S.S.\.,\.G    o\- ~f\i.l~.<.-\:\\le--,)              ~s\.~'l\.'-0 ~ U)Uf~ti_ C.\Y~ C.O{•"\.~\ctt....\'f d\s.\~e.:\o..r-'c\ \:ht._, \'::.Sl\c.&

 ~~'\(I_, '\:rlo...\       t.&:lL\A             o.~~-\ti\ \-o A~\~'-o..\t...,
           -r~--. c:ux.c1~ m"\~ -\:o ~--u\ti:. (3l'--\ fs\ nv,~                                     -r5:s 11\~~\~c..L\.ltt     t~~~ -\he&-\\"~ \.\oMm~\u
  Lour* \ss.u.u o.. t"'\.ai'\~nl\"\L\S.                             o.'f\.<\ J.·,,u...,\ '\:ht.J   ~\\\\\~me;\ C'..ourt o~ \\m·\"'~s. r_ou,~y";"\a.o.S.

  ~ t'"e..s..Cl\vt-~ o.\\ ~u~ o\.. -Go.c± n'f\c.\. ~e..'i'. ~or-wo.r"'~ ~L w,-\'\:· \-.u.ot-~ ~ -\hL c..eu,..Jc                                                     '*
     V\N\.~f'\o..\ ~~UL\s c:-1 r\lts\·,~){.."i..o..S                                \nt-- ~u,A\..er \?'~D~\~~.
         i\ ,, w1·\'-t ~ tt\ ~SS\\~           01.   \.D\""\~   a.\. MO\~a:M.U.S.     c\~rtL\:\~~ ~      m\\:\        ..\u.t\\D.a.~ ~\s:\r-~c.,-\: ~u\->-\

  o\. \\Gr-\"\s tou(\'\/ i\exo..s, C..a.\.'l~u\lo.\()\07:>~~-\\. ,'\o t'~~\\.Je....-\b-\-\~""-d\.1 Ae.:s.\~(\.c..\-eA.
  •\SS.\lU:..   O.\~ ~ -t\-wO.\~ ·\:h.eJ Cl\\be..\.\c.:\u l"t.Lcn--~ to -\-\'\f.; Lou\k n.C Cr~to-..~'t"'o...\. f\~~~L\s. a.-\.\u--
   ~~~ tt's \t..C..iH~\.N'\.-e.~v..\\c,~, ~\,~~\"~ o~ ~o..c\ 1 Clt'\dC.of\.c..\u.s.~o\'\S                        rA \aw .
                                                                                                                      . , :lo\"S.

                                                                                      ~a~"~ \_a.(\'\1)\~ r\\c.cr-V"\ ~OtB'\15'\
                                                                                       ~~0 ~E t>S-~\>S--~"8J.\I\\I..o~

                                                                                        ~-t\\<.S u('.~--\:

                                                                                        3 o luD ~ \"\. sS \2.\
                                                                                         ~l?..fi..\..l'(\1\l)~   ;-r~~ t l l0 s
~~~\e... \\Q..\.e..o.:::. ~~~\l(:A\ion. ~. .e..cb"u\.
-~ \'1\o'\:\oX'\ \\~~ts\:h"\r~\)c:..~\~....o~\c-t"'\ ~~ 1:.:s..sut.S

 ·~ S'\-tt\:~ ~ t'o~os.u\. G \"'ck.r ~e.s.\~"o~~\"~ '!.s ~~t..S

 L~ S'\o~~ Ol·\~l-,ol ~\'\.SoJu"
                                                   CHRIS DANIEL
                                          HARRIS COUNTY DISTRICT CLERK

January 20,       20~5

DAMIEN LAMONT ALCORN
#01339759- STILES UNIT
3060 FM 3514
BEAUMONT, TX 77705

RE: CAUSE #1010324.,A
228th District Court

Dear Applicant:

Your post conviction application for Writ of Habeas Corpus was received and filed on 1-7-15. Article 11.07 of the Texas code of
Criminal Procedure affords the State 15 days in which to answer the application after having been served with said application.
After the 15 days allowed the State to answer the application, the Court has 20 days in which it may order the designation of
issues to be resolved, if any. If the Court has not entered an order designating issues to be resolved within 35 days after the State
having been served with the application, the application will be forwarded to the Court of Criminal Appeals for their
consideration pursuant to Article 11.07, Sec. 3(c) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.

The records of the office reflect the following:

CAUSE NO.              PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS                                        DISPOSITION

        re correspondence should indicate the above listed cause number.

                  1201 FRANKLIN     • P.O. Box 4651 • HOUSTON, TEXAS 77210-4651 PAGE 1 OF 1
                                                  REv. 01-02-04
                                           CHRIS DANIEL
                                   HARRIS COUNTY DISTRICT CLERK

February 4, 2015

DAMIEN LAMONT ALCORN
#01339759- STILES UNIT
3060 FM 3514~.
BEAUMONT, T)\ .77705

To whom It May Concern:

Pursuant to Article l 1,07 ofthe Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, please find enclosed
copies of the documents indicated below concerning the Post Conviction Writ filed in
cause number 1010324-A in the 228th District Court.

D    State's Original Answer Filed

D    Affidavit

D    Court Order Dated

D    Respondent's Proposed Order Designating Issues and Order For Filing Affidavit.

D    Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact and Order

~ Other

Sin~eely,

Bren a Me · .(l)eputy
                I
                      /
                      4
Criminal Post Trial

Enclosure( s) - Motion Requesting Designation Of Issues I State's Proposed Order Designating Issues

              1201 FRANKLIN   •   P.O. Box 4651   • HousTON, TExAs 77210-4651 • (888) 545-5577

PAGE I OF I                                                                                 REv: 01-02-04
i   .,
    I

                                  Cause No·. 1010324-A

         EX PARTE                             §         IN THE 22Sth DISTRICT COURT

                                              §         OF

         DAMIEN LAMONT ALCORN,                §         HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
           Applicant

                    MOTION REQUESTING DESIGNATION OF ISSUES

              The   State   of Texas,   by        and    through   its      Assistant       District

         Attorney for Harris County, requests that this Court, pursuant to TEX.

         CODE (RIM. PROC. art. 11.07, §3(d), designate the following issues which

         need to be resolved:

              1. Whether    the   applicant       received   ineffective         assistance        of
                 counsel;

              2. Whether the trial court erred 1n granting the State's motion
                .to compel; and

              3. Whether there was sufficient evidence with which to convict
                 the applicant.

                                                                      FILED
                                                                           Chris Daniel
                                                                           District Clerk

                                                                          JAN 2 6 2015
                                                               ~me:;----~==~~­
                                                                         _!r:~·~m~i=+y._re-xa_s_
                                                               By:_
                                                                             4~
f   ..~.

                Service has been accomplished by mailing a true and correct

           copy of the foregoing instrument to the applicant at the following

           address:

                Damien Lamont Alcorn
                #13389759 - Stiles Unit
                3060 FM3514
                Beaumont, Texas 77705

                SIGNED this 26th day of January, 2015.

                                                       fully submitted,
                                                   1

                                                 Vf-. F
                                                   res
                                            As~. ant District Attorney
                                            Harris County, Texas
                                            1201 Franklin, Suite 600
                                            Houston, Texas 77002
                                            (713) 755-6657 (office)
                                            (713) 755-5809 (fax)
                                            Texas Bar I.D. #24059760

                                             2
'·   '

                                                                                    FILED
                                                                                       o1~r:?c?~~;~
                                       Cause No. 1010324-A                            JAN 2
                                                                            11ma:             6 2015
         EX PARTE                                  §         IN THE 228ttall)ISTR1~-~~H-.-

                                                   §         OF

         DAM IEN .LAMONT ALCORN,                   §         HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
           Applicant

                     STATE'S PROPOSED ORDER DESIGNATING ISSUES

                Having reviewed the applicant's application for writ of habeas

         corpus,   the   Court      finds   that       the   following     issues      need     to     be

         resolved in the instant proceeding:

                1. Whether   the      applicant        received   ineffective        assistance         of
                     counsel;

                2. Whether the trial court erred 1n granting the State's motion
                   to compel; and

                3. Whether there was sufficient evidence with whiCh to convict
                   the applicant.

                Therefore,   pursuant       to   Article      11.07,     §3(d),     this   Court       will

         resolve the above-cited issue and then enter findings of fact.

                The Clerk of the Court is ORDERED NQI to transmit at this

         time   any documents         in the       above-styled        case to the            Court of

         Criminal Appeals until further order by this Court.
By the following signature, the Court adopts State's Proposed Order

         Designating Issues in Cause Number 1010324-A.

SIGNED on the _ __

                                 2
                                                CHRIS DANIEL
                                        HARRIS COUNTY DISTRICT CLERK

August 7, 2015

DAMIEN LAMONT ALCORN
#01339759- STILES UNIT
3060 FM 3514
BEAUMONT, TX 77705

To Whom It May Concern:

Pursuant to Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, please find enclosed
copies ofthe documents indicated below concerning the Post Conviction Writ tiled in
cause number 101 0324-A in the 228th District Court.

~ State's Original Answer Filed August 6, 2015

D      Affidavit

D      Court Order Dated

D      Respondent's Proposed Order Designating Issues and Order For Filing Affidavit.

D      Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact2007 WL 582292 (Tex. App. - Houston [14th Dist.] February 27,

      2007, pet. ref d.).

                                             II.

              The State denies the factual allegations made in the instant

      application, except those ·supported by official court records, and

      offers the following additional reply:

           Reply to the Ap_plicant's First _and Second Grounds for Relief

              In his first ground for relief, the applicant alleges that the

      State     withheld    Brady information .      Applicant's . Writ   at   6-7.

     . Specifically, the applicant claims that the State withheld phone

      records of the applicant's acc;omplice that· the State received several

      months before trial.     ld

                                             2
.•

          In his second ground for relief, the applicant alleges that the

     State committed· prosecutorial misconduct when it used perjured

     testimony.   Applicant's Writ at 8-9    Specifically, the applicant claims

     that a State's witness lied when she testified that her husband sold

     or gave a gun to the applicant.    ld

     Brady Violation

          Under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), the State is

     required to provide a defendant with any exculpatory evidence that

     is favorable and material.     When alleging· a Brady violation, the

     applicant has the burden of showing that:.      1) the prosecutor failed

     to disclose evidence; 2) the evidence was favorable to the applicant;

     and 3) the evidence was material, such that there is a reasonable

     probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense,

     the outcome of the trial would have been different.      Ex parte Kimes,

     872 S.W.2d 700, 702-703 (Tex. Crim. App .. 1993).

          In .the instant claim, the applicant fails to demonstrate that this

     information was withheld from the defense.         The . applicant shows

                                        3
records that existed in 2005, but has not shown that trial counsel

was not aware of these records.    Furthermore, he fails to show how .

or that these records are exculpatory.     Finally, the applicant fails to

demonstrate materiality such that there is a reasonable probability

that, had trial counsel known of the records (assuming arguendo

that counsel was not aware of the records), the outcome of the

trial would have been different.       Ex parte Kimes, 872 S.W.2d 700,

702-703 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993).

 Prosecutorial Misconduct

    . A prosecutor's active or pass1ve use of perjured testimony

violates a defendant's right ·to due process.      Ex parte Castellano,

863 S.W.2d 476, 481 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993), citing Mooney v.

·.Holohan, 294 US. 103, 55 S. Ct. 340 (1935).      Such violation occurs

whenever the pro·secutor has actual or imputed knowledge of the

perjury which is material to the conviction.     Ex parte Castellano at

.481, 485.   The State commits a due process violation when (1) the

State presents false testimony, (2) the State knows or has reason to

                                   4
know that the testimony was false, and (3) the false testimony is

material.     Furthermore,   the   prosecutor    must   correct   a   false

impression, including those that do not amount to perjury, left by a

witness.    Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 153, 92 S. Ct. 763

(1972); Napue v.· Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 269, 7.9 S.Ct. 1173 (1959);

Alcorta v. Texas, 355 U.S. 28, 32, 78 S. Ct. 103 (1957).

      A charge of perjury is a serious accusation and must· be

clearly supported by the evidence.        Haywood v. State, 507 S.W.2d

756, 760 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974).        A defendant bears the burden of

showing that ·testimony used by the State was perjured.           Luck v.

State, 588 S.W.2d 371, 373 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (op. on reh'g);

Hawkins v. State, 660 S.W.2d 65, 75 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983). ,Even if

conflicting testimony is presented, that fact alone would not indicate

perjury.    Losada v. State, 721 S.W.2d 305, 312 (Tex. Crim. App.

1986); Brown v. State, 477 S.W.2d 617, 623 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972).

In this case, the applicant fails to meet his burden of showing that

the testimony that forms the basis of his complaints amounts to

                                    5
perJury.     The applicant merely highlights conflicts between his own

testimony and that of a State's witness.

      Conflicting testimony is resolved by the fact finder - 1n this

case, the jury. ·Losada v. State, 721 S.W.2d 305, 309 (Tex. Crim. App.

1986).     The jury . may accept all, part, or none of any witness's

testimony.    Penagraph v. State, 623 S.W.2d 341, 343 (Tex. Crim. App.

[Panel Op.] 1981).     It is the jury's job to judge the credibility of the

witnesses, and to decide the weight given to each witness's testimony.

Banks      v. State, 510 S.W.2d 592, 595 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974)

(abrogated on other grounds).      The jury may resolve or reconcile any

conflicts in testimony as they see fit.    /d   When evidence exists that

both supports and conflicts with the jury's verdict, the courts must

assume that the fact finder resolved such conflicts in favor of the

verdict rendered.     Turro v. State, 856 S.W.2d 43, 47 (Tex. Crim. App.

1993).     That is exactly 'what happened in the instant case - the jury

resolved the conflicts in the testimony in favor of a guilty verdict.

                                      6
     Furthermore, trial counsel had· the opportunity to cross-examine

the witness during trial.         The jury thus had the opportunity to

consider the testimony of all witnesses.            All of the alleged conflicts in

evidence   were ·before     the    jury       for   its   consideration,   both   for

substantive and credibility purposes.

     The applicant fails to demonstrate that the State . knowingly

relied upon false statements.       For all these reasons, the applicant's

first and second grounds for relief are without merit, and should be

denied.

           Reply to the Applicant's Third Ground for Relief

     The applicant all~ges in his third ground for relief that there               IS

no evidence, other than uncorroborated accomplice testimony, to

support his conviction.   Applicant's Writ at 10-11.

     On appeal, the applicant raised four grounds for relief:

   1. That the evidence was not sufficient to support his conviction,

     as it relied solely on the testimony of              a   person the applicant

     feels should have been designated an accomplice to the crime;

                                          7
  2. That the co-defendant's refusal to .testify and invocation of his

    . Fifth Amendment. right was improperly imputed to the applicant,

     unfairly prejudicing the applicant;

  3. That   the    trial   court   erred   by   admitting    eviden·ce    of the

     applicant's extraneous offenses and bad acts via a third party's

     testimony;· and

  4. That   the    trial   court   erred by admitting        evidence . of the

     applicant's    extraneous       offenses    and · bad     acts      via   the

     applicant's recorded statement to police.

See Alcorn v. State, 14-05-01195-CR, 2007 WL 582292 (Tex. App. -

Houston [14th Dist.] February 27, 2007, pet. refd.).

     In its decision, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals found that "the

trial court correctly gave the jury the responsibility of determining

whether [the State's witness] was an accomplice," and overruled the

applicant's first issue on appeal.         Alcorn. v. State, 14-05-01195-CR, ·

2007 WL 582292 at *1-*4.           The Court of Appeals· specifically noted

that mere presence, knowledge, failure to disclose, and concealment

                                       8
 of a crime do not make an individual an · accomplice."                /d (citing

, Maynard   v.   State, 166, S.W.3d 403, 411 (Tex. App. - Austin 2005,

 pet. refd).

      The Fourteenth Court of Appeals also addressed the applicant's

 claim that the trial court erred by allowing the State to grant use

 immunity to his accomplice.           Specifically, the (ourt of Appeals noted

 that the trial court advised the accomplice that. he could not invoke

 his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent: because he had been

 granted use immunity.           Alcorn v. State, 14-05-01195-CR, 2007 WL

 582292 at· *4.      ·Despite the court's admonishment, the accomplice

. refused   to   testify,   so   the    triaL court   held   the   accomplice   in

 contempt of court - ten times.           ld; States Writ Exhibit A, Judgment

 of Contempt and Commitment Order in cause number 1047601;

 States Writ Exhibit B, Judgment of Contempt and Commitment

 Order in cause number 1 047602; States Writ Exhibit C, Judgment of

 Contempt and Commitment Order in cause number 1 047603;. States

 Writ Exhibit D, Judgment ·of. Contempt and Commitment Order in

                                           9
       _;

....

            cause number 1047604; State's           Writ Exhibit· E,   Judgment of

            Contempt and Commitment Order in cause number 1047605; State's

            Writ Exhibit F, Judgment .of Contempt and Commitment Order in

            cause number . 1 047606; · State's      Writ   Exhibit   G Judgment of

            Contempt and Commitment Order in cause number 1047607; State's

            Writ Exhibit H, Judgment of Contempt and Commitment Order in

            c;ause number 1047608,· State's Writ Exhibit/, Judgment of Contempt

            and Commitment Order in cause number 1047609; and State's Writ

            Exhibit J, Judgment of Contempt and Comm/tment Order in cause

            number 1047610. · The Court of Appeals held that the applicant was

        · not unfairly prejudiced by the. accomplice's invocation of his own

            Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.

                    The Court of Appeals further held that the applicant failed to

            preserve error by failing to object in a timely manner in his claim

            that the trial. court abused its discretion when it allowed a witness

            to testify about the applicant's extraneous offenses and prior bad

            acts.    Alcorn v. State, 14-05-01195-CR, 2007 WL 582292 at *4-*5 ..

                                               10
'   '

                Finally, the Court of Appeals, without specifically finding error,

        held    that    the   applicant   was   not   harmed   by the   trial court's

        admission of evidence of the applicant's extraneous offenses and

        prior bad acts via the applicant's recorded statement with the police.

        Alcorn v. State, 14-05-01195-CR, 2007 WL 582292 at *5-*6.

                Issues raised and rejected on direct appeal need not be

        considered on habeas.         Ex parte Acosta, 672 S.W.2d 470, 47Z (Tex.

        Crim.    App.    1984).    The    Court of Appeals     has   addressed the

        applicant's third ground for relief directly.      Because the applicant's

        third ground for relief was raised .and rejected on direct appeal, that

        issue need not be considered in the instant writ · proceeding or           1n

        any subsequent proceeding.         Ex parte Acosta, 672 S.W.2d at 47-2.

         Reply to the Applicant's Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Grounds for Relief

                The applicant alleges in his fourth ground for relief that the

        trial court erred by denying his motion to find that the State's witness

        was a party to the offense.       Applicant's Wnt at 12-13

                                                11
      In the applicant's fifth ground for relief, he complains that the
                                                                             \

trial court . erred by allowing the State to grant his accomplice use

immunity.    Applicant's Writ at 14-15

     ·In his sixth ground for relief, the applicant complains that the

trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury that a witness's

testimony     may    be    tainted    if        that   witness   1s   compensated.

Applicant's Writ a(   $16~$171.   ·

      Claims of trial court error· are generally record claims which

are required to be raised in the trial court and on direct appeal.

An application for writ of habeas corpus may not be used to litigate

matters that could have been raised on direct appeal.                     Ex parte

Nelson,     137 S.W.3d 666, 667 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004); Ex parte

Townsend, 137 S.W.3d 79, 81 (Tex. Crim. App~ 2004).                        "Record

claims " which could have been but were not presented in the trial

court or on direct appeal should not be considered on habeas.                    Ex

1
  The applicant's writ memorandum uses pages "14" and "15" repeatedly to
complete his w··rit application. In order to avoid confusion for the purposes of
this answer, the State will designate the page after the first page 14 and page
15 of the writ application as page 16, and· continue thereon.

                                           12
parte .Gardner, 959 S.W.2d 189, 199 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (op.

reh'g).   Because the applicant's claim of trial court error is a record

claim, it should not be considered on habeas.

      For all these reasons, the applicant's fourth, fifth, and sixth

grounds for relief are without merit and should be denied.

    Reply to the Applicant's Seventh and Eighth Grounds for Relief

      In his seventh and eighth · grounds for relief, the applicant

complains of ineffective assistance of counsel.         Specifically, the

applicant claims that counsel failed to:

          1. object to the prosecutor referring to the identity of the

            applicant's accomplice because the. applicant had not yet

            been identified as having been at the scene;

          2. object to the admission of the applicant's accomplice's

            criminal history;

          3. object to hearsay testimony of "witnesses;"

          4. investigate;

          5. interview witnesses; and

                                    13
        6. object to illegally seized evidence.         ·

Applicant's Writ at   18*-21~

     The   United      States   Supreme        Court   held    in   Strickland   v.

Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686 (1984), that the benchmark for

judging any claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is whether

counsel's conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the

adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied upon as having ·

produced a just result.      The Court in ·Strickland set forth a two-part

standard, which has been. adopted by Texas.                   See Hernandez v.

State, 726 S.W.2d 53, 57 (Tex. Crim. App .. 1986).                     First, the

defendant must prove by a preponderance· of the evidence that

counsel's · representation      fell   below     an    objective    standard     of

reasonableness.       Mitchell v. State, 68 S.W.3d 640, 642 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2002); Narvaiz v. State, 840 S.W.2d 415, 434 (Tex. Crim. App.

1992) (citing Strickland v. Washington, •466 U.S. at 688).            Reasonably

effective assistance of counsel does not require error-free counsel,

or counsel whose competency is judged . by hindsight.                ·Mercado v.

                                       14
 State, 615 S.W.2d 225, 228 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981).                                    Second, there

 must    be     a       reasonable        probability           that,     but         for   counsel's

. unprofessional errors, the result
                                          . ofI the.          proceeding would have been
                                                                            .
 different.    /d   A ."reasonable prdbability" is "a probability sufficient

           ·      fid .    · h
 to un derm1ne con .I ence 1n t e outcome.
                                                    I
                                                    j
                                                               . tu.,_,
                                                .
                                                    II

      Article
          .   I, Section 10 of thJI. Texas Constitution also requ1res
                                  I
 that a criminal defendant receiVe effective· assistance of counseL ·
                                                    I
 However, the       Texas     constitutio~al provision                    does        not create    a
                                                    II
 standard that is more · protective j of a defendant's rights than that
                                                        I

 established 1n Strickland           Black          ¢ State,     816 S.W.2d 350, 357 (Tex.
                                                        I
 Crim. App. · 1991) (citing Hernandez v. State, 726 S.W.2d 53 (Tex.
                                                        I

 Crim. App. ·1986)).. Therefore, an                     ~nalysis of \:he effectiveness of the
                                            .           I                       .      .                 .
_applicant's    trial    counsel     in    thej primary              case           pursuant to    the
                                               I   .                                          .

 Strickland standard satisfies both the federal and state constitutional
                                                         I
                                                        I
 requirements.
                                                        I
        The court will not use hindsight to . second-guess a tactical
                                  I
 decision made by trial counsed nor will. the fact that another

                                                        15
..

     attorney might have pursued a different course support a finding of

     ineffectiveness. Solis v. State, 792 S.W.2d 95, 100 (Tex. Crim. App.

     1990); 8/ott v. State, 588 S.W.2d ·588, 592 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979).

     When evaluating an ineffective assistance claim, the reviewing court

     looks    at the    totality of the   representation     and   the   particular

     circumstances of the case. See Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808,

     813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).      In reviewing counsel's performance, the

     court indulges a strong presumption tha~ he acted within the wide

     range of reasonable professional assistance.       ld

     Failure to· Object

             The applicant complains that trial counsel failed to object to: .

               7. the prosecutor referring to the identity of the applicant's

                  accomplice   because    the   applicant    had   not yet   been

                  identified as having been at the scene;

               8. the admission    of the applicant's accomplice's criminal

                  history;

                9. hearsay testimony of "witnesses;"

                                          16
          10.       illegally seized evidence.

Applicant's Wnt at 18*-21 ~

     To show ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to object,

the applicant must show that the trial court would have either

sustained the objection or that he would have committed error in

overruling the objection.      Ex pane White, 160 S.W.3d 46 (Tex. Crim. ·

App. 2004); Vaughn v. State, 931 S.W.2d 564 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).

Furthermore, an isolated failure to object generally does not in itself

constitute ineffective assistance.          Bridge v. State,. 726 S.W.2d 558

(Tex. Crim. App. 1986).

Failure to Investigate

     The · applicant      alleges   that    counsel      failed    to    conduct   an

adequate investigation, and failed to interview witnesses. · Applicant's

Writ at   18*-19~

     The        defense   counsel   has      a    duty    to      make     a   proper

investigation and prepare for trial.             Ex pane Dunham, 650 S.W.2d

825 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983).          In order to succeed on a claim of

                                       17
ineffective   assistance      of counsel         for   failure     to     investigate,    an

applicant must show what a more in-depth investigation would have

revealed.     Mooney v. State, 817 S.W.2d 693 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

Furthermore, the applicant must show how the alleged inadequate

preparation affected the outcome of the trial.                   Ex parte Walker, 777

S.W.2d 427 (Tex.          Crim. . App.     1989).       Moreover, even           assuming

arguendo,       that    defense · counsel        limited     his        investigation,    an
   .      I

attorneys         decision         may·     be         reasonable           under         the

circumstances.         Harris v. Dugger, 87 4 F2d 756, 763 (11th Cir.), cert.

denied, 110 S. Ct. 573 (1989); Butler v. State, 716 S.W.2d 48, 54

(Tex. Crim. App. 1986).

        The   applicant fails       to    show what        further       investigation     by

counsel would have revealed, nor how counsel's alleged inadequate

investigation     affected    the    outcome        of the       instant     case.       The

· applicant also fails to allege what, if any, witnesses counsel should

 have    interviewed.        The    applicant     presents       nothing      more       than

 conclusory allegations that counsel .failed to investigate, which, even

                                            18
.:io

       if sworn to, do not overcome the State's denial and do not warrant

       habeas relief. Ex parte Young, 418 S.W.2d 824 (Tex. Crim. App.

       1967); Ex parte Empey, 757 S.W.2d 771, 775 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988).

 .·The applicant also fails to show how counsel's failure to investigate

       rendered his representation· ineffective.       Thus, the applicant fails to

       meet his requisite burden, and these aspects of the applicant's

       claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are without merit, and

       should be denied.

            Nevertheless, and without waiving the foregoing arguments, the

       resolution requires info.rmation concerning trial counsel's strategic

       decisions,   and    confidential     communications        with   the    applicant.

       Therefore, the State believes that further factual investigation is

       necessary    to    determine   the    merit,   if   any,    to    the   applicant's

       ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim.

                                              Ill.

            ·The trial court has already designated the 1ssue of ineffective

       assistance of counsel as an issue that needs to be addressed.                  The

                                              19
State    respectfully requests that the trial court      order Randolph

McDonald to file an affidavit addressing the instant allegations of

ineffective assistance.

                                    IV.

        Service has been accomplished by sending a copy· of this

instrument to the following address:

        Damien Lamont Alcorn                                              .,
        #1339759 - Stiles Unit
        3060 FM 3514
        Beaumont, Texas 77705

        SIGNED this 6th day of August, 2015 ..

                                         ores
                                   Assistant District Attorney
                                   Harris County, Texas
                                   1201 Franklin, 6th Floor
                                   Houston, Texas 77002
                                   (713) 755-6657
                                   (713) 755-:5240 (fax)
                                   Texas Bar ID #24059760

                                     20

                                                                               I.
         Certificate of Compliance as Required by Tex. R. App. 73.3 .

     The State of Texas, through its Assistant District Attorney for ·

Harris County, files this, its Certificate of Compliance in the above-

captioned cause, having been served with an application for writ· of

habeas corpus pursuant to Tex. Crim. Proc. Code art. 11.07 § 3. The

State certifies that the number of words in the State's Answer is

3,059.

                                     21