Court Opinion

ID: 2949138
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-16 05:51:45.408996+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:59:47.043241
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
                         OF TEXAS
                                         NO. WR-82,084-01

                      EX PARTE MATTHEW RYAN ZAPATA, Applicant

                ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
               CAUSE NO. 12-1180-CR-A IN THE 25TH DISTRICT COURT
                           FROM GUADALUPE COUNTY

        Per curiam.

                                              ORDER

        Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant pleaded guilty to burglary of a

habitation and was sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment.

        Applicant contends, among other things, that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance

because counsel failed to have him evaluated for competency and failed to bring his mental health

issues to the attention of the trial court. Applicant alleges that he understood that he was pleading

guilty in this and two other cases in exchange for six-year concurrent sentences. Applicant alleges

that he did not understand why the trial court sentenced him to twenty years’ imprisonment in this
                                                                                                      2

case, and counsel did not explain to him that he could withdraw his plea.

       Applicant has alleged facts that, if true, might entitle him to relief. Strickland v. Washington,

466 U.S. 668 (1984); Ex parte Patterson, 993 S.W.2d 114, 115 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). In these

circumstances, additional facts are needed. As we held in Ex parte Rodriguez, 334 S.W.2d 294, 294

(Tex. Crim. App. 1960), the trial court is the appropriate forum for findings of fact. The trial court

shall order trial counsel to respond to Applicant’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The

trial court may use any means set out in TEX . CODE CRIM . PROC. art. 11.07, § 3(d).

       If the trial court elects to hold a hearing, it shall determine whether Applicant is indigent.

If Applicant is indigent and wishes to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an

attorney to represent Applicant at the hearing. TEX . CODE CRIM . PROC. art. 26.04.

       The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether the

performance of Applicant’s trial counsel was deficient and, if so, whether counsel’s deficient

performance prejudiced Applicant. The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of

law as to whether Applicant’s plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered. The trial court shall also

make findings as to whether Applicant was advised of his right to appeal after he was sentenced

pursuant to an open plea. The trial court shall also make any other findings of fact and conclusions

of law that it deems relevant and appropriate to the disposition of Applicant’s claim for habeas

corpus relief.

       This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fact issues. The

issues shall be resolved within 90 days of this order. A supplemental transcript containing all

affidavits and interrogatories or the transcription of the court reporter’s notes from any hearing or

deposition, along with the trial court’s supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law, shall
                                                                                                3

be forwarded to this Court within 120 days of the date of this order. Any extensions of time shall

be obtained from this Court.

Filed: October 1, 2014
Do not publish