Mendoza, Jose Concepcion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
NO. WR-76,336-04
EX PARTE JOSE CONCEPCION MENDOZA, Applicant
ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
CAUSE NO. 692486-C IN THE 180TH DISTRICT COURT
FROM HARRIS COUNTY
Per curiam.
ORDER
Applicant was convicted of injury to a child and sentenced to sixty years’ imprisonment. The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Mendoza v. State, No. 14-95-00704-CR (Tex.
App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, pet. ref’d). Applicant filed this application for a writ of habeas
corpus in the county of conviction, and the district clerk forwarded it to this Court. See TEX . CODE
CRIM . PROC. art. 11.07.
Applicant relies on the statutory basis in Code of Criminal Procedure Article 11.073 to assert
that new scientific evidence has emerged that contradicts the scientific evidence relied upon by the
State at trial.
Applicant has alleged facts that, if true, might entitle him to relief. Tex. Code Crim. Proc.
art. 11.073; Ex parte Robbins, 478 S.W.3d 678 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). 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 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 regarding the report from Dr. Carl Wigren attached to
Applicant’s habeas application. Those findings should include whether the information included in
the report is based on relevant scientific evidence which was not available at the time of Applicant’s
trial as defined by TEX . CODE CRIM . PRO . Art. 11.073, whether the information in Dr. Wigren’s
report proves that Applicant is actually innocent of the charge, and whether the report is so reliable
and so contradicts the scientific evidence relied upon by the State at trial that no reasonable juror
would have convicted 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 must
be requested by the trial court and shall be obtained from this Court.
Filed: March 31, 2021
Do not publish