Court Opinion

ID: 9902361
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-26 18:10:58.465422+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:49.336874
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
                        OF TEXAS
                                   NOS. WR-94,502 -01 & -02

                       EX PARTE ALBERTO LONGORIA, Applicant

               ON APPLICATIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS
          CAUSE NOS. C-396-W012228-1365681-A & C-396-W012229-1365684-A
            IN THE 396TH DISTRICT COURT FROM TARRANT COUNTY

       Per curiam.

                                          OPINION

       Applicant pleaded guilty to two offenses of aggravated assault. The trial court placed

Applicant on deferred-adjudication community supervision. The State later sought adjudications

and prison terms. The trial court revoked the probations, adjudicated Applicant guilty, and

assessed two concurrent terms of ten years in prison. The trial judge told Applicant that the trial

court was considering shock probation. However, Applicant was not eligible for shock

probation. Revocation counsel sought a new trial but raised grounds that proved to be without

merit. See Longoria v. State, Nos. 02-21-00071-CR & 02-21-00072-CR (Tex. App.—Fort

Worth May 12, 2022) (not designated for publication).
                                                                                                    2

        Applicant, through habeas counsel, filed these applications for writs of habeas corpus in

the county of conviction. The district clerk forwarded them to this Court. See TEX. CODE CRIM.

PROC. art. 11.07. Applicant claimed that revocation counsel was ineffective for filing a motion

for new trial that stated incorrect grounds for relief, thus depriving the trial court of the

opportunity to grant a motion for new trial. The habeas record contained no response from

revocation counsel or findings from the trial court resolving the disputed factual issues. This

Court remanded. The trial court obtained additional evidence, including revocation counsel’s

affidavit and testimony at an evidentiary hearing. The parties each submitted proposed findings.

The trial court, in independent findings of fact and conclusions of law, determined that

revocation counsel was deficient as Applicant had alleged and that revocation counsel’s deficient

representation harmed Applicant. The trial court recommended granting habeas relief. The State

filed objections.

        This Court has made an independent review of the record. The trial court’s findings and

conclusions and its recommendation to grant habeas relief are supported by the record and

applicable law. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984); Cooks v. State, 240 S.W.3d

906 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). Relief is granted.

        The judgments in cause numbers 1365681D and 1365684D in the 396th District Court of

Tarrant County are set aside. Applicant has already pled true to the adjudication allegations. The

trial court shall consider the motions to adjudicate and Applicant’s pleas, may gather additional

evidence, and shall dispose of the motions to adjudicate. The trial court shall issue any necessary

orders within ten days from the date of this Court’s mandate.
                                                                                           3

       Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice—

Correctional Institutions Division and the Board of Pardons and Paroles.

Delivered:     NOVEMBER 22, 2023
Do not publish