Garrison, Armani ( 2022 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
NOS. WR-93,566-01 AND WR-93,566-02
EX PARTE ARMANI GARRISON, Applicant
ON APPLICATIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS
CAUSE NOS. 1506403-A AND 1579359-A IN THE 185TH DISTRICT COURT
FROM HARRIS COUNTY
Per curiam.
ORDER
Applicant pleaded guilty in the -01 case to aggravated robbery and was originally placed on
deferred adjudication community supervision. He was later adjudicated guilty and sentenced to
thirteen years’ imprisonment. Among the allegations in the State’s motion to proceed to adjudication
in the -01 case was the allegation that Applicant had committed a new offense of possession of a
controlled substance, with which he was charged separately in the -02 case. Applicant pleaded true
to the allegations in the motion to adjudicate in the -01 case and guilty to the charge in the -02 case
on the same date. The trial court deferred findings of guilt in both cases, and reset the matters for
sentencing. After granting a one-week continuance, the trial court sentenced Applicant to thirteen
years’ imprisonment in the -01 case after adjudication, and ten years’ imprisonment in the -02 case
2
to run concurrently. Applicant did not appeal his convictions. Applicant filed these applications for
writs of habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and the district clerk forwarded them to this
Court. See TEX . CODE CRIM . PROC. art. 11.07.
Applicant contends that his pleas of true and guilty were involuntary because the attorney
who represented him in both the adjudication in the -01 and the plea in the -02 failed to investigate
or obtain discovery, and erroneously advised Applicant that he should plead true and guilty, that this
would allow counsel to obtain discovery, and that Applicant would be able to withdraw his pleas
after discovery had been obtained. Applicant alleges that counsel failed to appear in court on the
sentencing date, but that the trial court nevertheless proceeded with the sentencing and did not allow
Applicant to withdraw his pleas.
Applicant has alleged facts that, if true, might entitle him to relief. Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S.
52 (1985); Ex parte Argent, 393 S.W.3d 781 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). Accordingly, the record
should be developed. The trial court is the appropriate forum for findings of fact. TEX . CODE CRIM .
PROC. art. 11.07, § 3(d). The trial court shall order adjudication/ trial counsel to respond to
Applicant’s claims. In developing the record, the trial court may use any means set out in Article
11.07, § 3(d). If the trial court elects to hold a hearing, it shall determine whether Applicant is
indigent. If Applicant is indigent and wants to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall appoint
counsel to represent him at the hearing. See TEX . CODE CRIM . PROC . art. 26.04. If counsel is
appointed or retained, the trial court shall immediately notify this Court of counsel’s name.
The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether adjudication/
trial counsel’s performance was deficient and Applicant would have insisted on a contested
adjudication hearing and trial but for counsel’s alleged deficient performance. The trial court may
3
make any other findings and conclusions that it deems appropriate in response to Applicant’s claims.
The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law within ninety days from
the date of this order. The district clerk shall then immediately forward to this Court the trial court’s
findings and conclusions and the record developed on remand, including, among other things,
affidavits, motions, objections, proposed findings and conclusions, orders, and transcripts from
hearings and depositions. See TEX . R. APP . P. 73.4(b)(4). Any extensions of time must be requested
by the trial court and obtained from this Court.
Filed: March 16, 2022
Do not publish