Hill, Keith ( 2014 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
NO. WR-82,270-01
EX PARTE KEITH HILL, Applicant
ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
CAUSE NO. 1103320 IN THE 337TH DISTRICT COURT
FROM HARRIS 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 aggravated sexual
assault and sentenced to ninety-nine years’ imprisonment. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals
affirmed his conviction. Hill v. State, No. 14-08-00062-CR (Tex. App. — Houston [14th Dist.] July
21, 2009, pet. ref’d.).
Applicant contends, among other things,1 that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance
1
This Court has reviewed Applicant’s other claims and finds them to be without merit.
2
during the punishment stage of trial, because counsel failed to object when a police detective testified
as to what he was told by a non-testifying complainant in one of the extraneous cases, and because
counsel failed to object to the introduction of evidence obtained from an apparently invalid search
of a computer hard drive taken from Applicant’s room.
The trial court has entered findings of fact and conclusions of law in this case, recommending
that relief be denied. However, those findings of fact and conclusions of law appear to be
contradictory. Specifically, the trial court finds that the jury should not have heard evidence of the
extraneous offense about which the complainant in that case did not testify, and finds that the State’s
case on punishment would have been less compelling without such evidence. The trial court also
finds that the search of the computer hard drive exceeded the scope of the consent to search given
by Applicant’s father, and that there was no warrant authorizing the search of the hard drive. The
trial court finds that the evidence found on the hard drive was inadmissible, and that no sound
strategy could justify trial counsel’s failure to object or seek to suppress this evidence. The trial
court finds that the State’s case on punishment would have been less compelling without the
testimony concerning the contents of the hard drive. Notwithstanding these findings, the trial court
finds that trial counsel’s performance was not deficient, and that Applicant was not prejudiced.
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. Therefore, the
trial court shall file supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law, reconciling the apparent
conflicts in the previously-submitted findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court shall
3
also make findings of fact as to who owned the computer that was seized during the search of
Applicant’s home. The trial court may use any means set out in TEX . CODE CRIM . PROC. art. 11.07,
§ 3(d). In the appropriate case, the trial court may rely on its personal recollection. Id.
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
be obtained from this Court.
Filed: December 17, 2014
Do not publish