Booker, Keith

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
NO. WR-79,060-02
EX PARTE KEITH BOOKER, Applicant
ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
CAUSE NO. CR00-170 IN THE 235TH DISTRICT COURT
FROM COOKE 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 possession with
intent to deliver a controlled substance and sentenced to thirty-five years’ imprisonment. The
Second Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Booker v. State, No. 02-02-00119-CR (Tex. App.
— Fort Worth, October 30, 2003) (not designated for publication).
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
for various reasons, before and during trial.
Applicant alleges that counsel failed to investigate and adequately prepare for trial.
Applicant’s prior counsel had filed a motion to require the State to reveal the identity of a
confidential informant, and Applicant alleges that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to urge the
motion. Applicant alleges that counsel failed to interview the State’s witnesses. Applicant alleges
that counsel failed to challenge the sufficiency of the affidavit in support of the arrest warrant, and
failed to file a motion to suppress the evidence as unlawfully seized.
Applicant alleges that trial counsel failed to object when the State amended the indictment
on the day of trial, and failed to strike two venire members who knew or were related to the
prosecutor.
Applicant alleges that trial counsel failed to challenge the chain of custody of the drug
evidence, failed to object to the admission of the drug analysis report without the chemist who
performed the analysis, failed to object to an unqualified police officer testifying as an expert about
drug analysis, and failed to have the drugs independently analyzed.
Applicant alleges that trial counsel failed to object when the prosecutor made various
improper statements during closing arguments.
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. The trial court
shall order trial counsel to respond to Applicant’s claims 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
3
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 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 shall
be obtained from this Court.
Filed: February 25, 2015
Do not publish