eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
 2012-09

Lahood, Ex Parte Michael George ( 2012 )


Menu:

  •     

















    IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

    OF TEXAS



    NOS. AP-76,873 & AP-76,874

    EX PARTE MICHAEL GEORGE LAHOOD, Applicant


    ON APPLICATIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS

    CAUSE NOS. 960494-A AND 960495-A IN THE 185TH

    DISTRICT COURT FROM HARRIS COUNTY

       Per curiam.  



    O R D E R



    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 these applications for writs of habeas corpus. Ex parte Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted in a single trial of aggravated kidnapping and aggravated sexual assault and was sentenced in each cause to concurrent terms of thirty years' imprisonment. The convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal. LaHood v. State, 171 S.W.3d 613 (Tex. App.--Houston [14 Dist.] 2005).

    In his writ applications, Applicant has alleged multiple claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. These applications are filed and set for submission, and the parties shall brief the following issues.

    1. Whether trial counsel, under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), was deficient for not bringing to the trial court's attention, either before or during trial, evidence of Applicant's alleged incompetency to stand trial.

    2. Assuming trial counsel was deficient for failing to alert the trial court to the alleged incompetency, whether Applicant was harmed by counsel's actions under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), and how the determination of harm should be made considering this Court's holdings in Sisco v. State, 599 S.W.2d 607 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980), Barber v. State, 737 S.W.2d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987), Williams v. State, 663 S.W.2d 832 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984), and their progeny.

    3. Assuming deficient performance and resulting harm are shown under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), whether the proper remedy is to order a retrospective competency inquiry or to grant a new trial. See, e.g., Barber v. State, 737 S.W.2d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987); Caballero v. State, 587 S.W.2d 741 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979).



    Applicant's remaining issues are denied.

    It appears that Applicant is represented by counsel. If that is not correct, the trial court shall determine whether Applicant is indigent. If Applicant is indigent and desires to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an attorney to represent Applicant. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art 26.04. The trial court shall send to this Court, within 60 days of the date of this order, a supplemental transcript containing: a confirmation that Applicant is represented by counsel; the order appointing counsel; or a statement that Applicant is not indigent. All briefs shall be filed with this Court on or before December 12, 2012.



    Filed: September 12, 2012

    Do not publish