Court Opinion

ID: 3007646
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-07 07:29:19.309778+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:52:59.221974
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
                         OF TEXAS
                                         NO. WR-81,814-03

                          EX PARTE JASON PAUL ZENO, Applicant

                 ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
                CAUSE NO. F-2002-1700-E IN THE 367TH DISTRICT COURT
                              FROM DENTON 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 was convicted of sexual assault

and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. He did not appeal his conviction.

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

He alleges that counsel was ineffective at his adjudication hearing by not requesting a separate

sentencing hearing after his guilt was adjudicated, failing to call his treatment provider to testify that

he was not discharged from treatment, eliciting damaging testimony, not doing an adequate pre-trial

investigation, and not presenting mitigation and character witnesses. He also alleges that counsel
                                                                                                      2

was ineffective as his initial plea for not informing him that if his guilt was adjudicated, he would

be facing the entire range of punishment. He also alleges that counsel coerced him into pleading

guilty by refusing to go to trial without more money.

       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 claim 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 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

be forwarded to this Court within 120 days of the date of this order. Any extensions of time shall
                               3

be obtained from this Court.

Filed: October 7, 2015
Do not publish