Arrington, Maurice Samuel ( 2017 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
NO. WR-84,245-02
EX PARTE MAURICE SAMUEL ARRINGTON, Applicant
ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
CAUSE NO. 69198-B IN THE 426TH DISTRICT COURT
FROM BELL COUNTY
Per curiam. A LCALA, J., filed a concurring opinion.
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 possession with
intent to deliver a controlled substance weighing four grams or more but less than 200 grams and
sentenced to thirty-five years’ imprisonment. The Third Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction.
Arrington v. State, No. 03-13-00066-CR (Tex. App.—Austin March 5, 2015)(not designated for
publication).
Applicant contends that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance because counsel: (1)
2
failed to file a motion to suppress the evidence based on an illegal arrest; (2) failed to a file a motion
to suppress Applicant’s statement obtained by police following an illegal arrest; (3) failed to suppress
Applicant’s coerced confession and interrogation video; (4) allowed the prosecution to delete parts
of the interrogation video to make Applicant’s statements admissible in court; (5) failed to file a
motion to disclose informant(s); (6) failed to object to Applicant’s denial of a public trial; (7) failed
to conduct an investigation into expert witness Detective Carl Pergande; (8) failed to object to the
admission of firearms; (9) failed to object to insinuations by the State that Applicant intended to hurt
the confidential informant; (10) failed to object to the prosecution “vouching” for a witness; (11)
failed to object to the altered interrogation video; (12) failed to object to the admission of
Applicant’s criminal history that was over ten years old; (13) failed to object to the State’s comment
on Applicant’s right to remain silent during police questioning; (14) failed to present a defense; and,
(15) failed to object to the State entering into evidence the police reports during closing argument.
Applicant also contends that appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance for failing to
raise sufficiency of the evidence on direct appeal.
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 shall also order appellate 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.
3
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 findings of fact and conclusions
of law as to whether the performance of Applicant’s appellate 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 must
be requested by the trial court and shall be obtained from this Court.
Filed: January 11, 2017
Do not publish