Miller, Rodney Earl ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •              IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
    OF TEXAS
    NO. WR-87,582-01
    EX PARTE RODNEY EARL MILLER, Applicant
    ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
    CAUSE NO. C-29,905-A IN THE 244th DISTRICT COURT
    FROM ECTOR 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 indecency with
    a child by contact and sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment. The Eleventh Court of Appeals
    affirmed his conviction. Miller v. State, No. 11-11-00350-CR (Tex. App.—Eastland Oct. 10, 2013)
    (not designated for publication).
    Applicant contends that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance because he failed to
    explain the consequences of pleading guilty in exchange for deferred adjudication, prepare a defense,
    investigate facts and leads, investigate the results of a sexual assault test kit, interview the victim,
    2
    and investigate witness reports and statements.
    Applicant also alleges he is actually innocent. Specifically, Applicant states that subsequent
    tests, conducted as part of a hearing pursuant to Chapter 64 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
    exclude him as the perpetrator in this case.
    Applicant also alleges that the State withheld material and exculpatory evidence prior to the
    entrance of his plea of guilty.
    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); Ex parte
    Tuley, 
    109 S.W.3d 388
     (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); Brady v. Maryland, 
    373 US 83
     (1963). 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 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.
    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 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 subsequent DNA testing shows that Applicant is actually innocent of
    committing the offense in this case. The trial court shall also make findings of fact and conclusions
    3
    of law as to whether the State withheld material and exculpatory evidence in this case. 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: November 15, 2017
    Do not publish