Keelin, David Dewayne ( 2019 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
NO. WR-88,657-02
EX PARTE DAVID DEWAYNE KEELIN, Applicant
ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
CAUSE NO. 3610-A IN THE 100TH DISTRICT COURT
FROM HALL 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 charged with possessing, with
intent to deliver, a first-degree felony amount of methamphetamine. He pled guilty for deferred-
adjudication probation, which probation was later revoked, and a 50-year sentence was assessed. In
several grounds, Applicant complains that revocation and appellate counsel failed to show that his
probation should not have been revoked.
To revoke, the State had alleged that Applicant admitted to cocaine use and failed to timely
notify his probation officer that he was terminated from employment. According to the direct appeal
2
opinion, Applicant’s probation officer testified that Applicant admitted to cocaine use, and the State
introduced a form signed by Applicant in which Applicant admitted to cocaine use. The evidence
as to employment is not clear, but the trial court found that Applicant had violated both conditions.
The trial court revoked the deferred-adjudication probation and adjudicated Applicant guilty.
Applicant says that his probation officer tricked him into admitting to using cocaine and into
signing the form. He says that his probation officer told him he would receive drug treatment if he
admitted to drug use, but no treatment was offered, making his admission involuntary. Applicant also
provides an affidavit from an employer who states that Applicant was employed on the date the State
alleged Applicant failed to notify probation that he became unemployed.
Applicant has alleged facts that, if true, might entitle him to relief. There is no response from
revocation and appellate counsel in the habeas record. A response from revocation and appellate
counsel is needed to resolve the claims. 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 obtain a response from revocation and appellate counsel and may use any means set out in TEX .
CODE CRIM . PROC. art. 11.07, § 3(d) to do so. In the appropriate case, the trial court may rely on its
personal recollection. Id. 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 resolving whether: revocation counsel was
deficient in presenting evidence to show that Applicant’s admission was involuntary and that
Applicant was employed at the time in question; and whether appellate counsel was deficient in
challenging the probation revocation. The trial court shall also make any other findings of fact and
3
conclusions of law that it deems relevant and appropriate to the disposition of Applicant’s claims
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: May 8, 2019
Do not publish