Opinion
NUMBER 13-15-00136-CR
03-03-2016
EX PARTE ROSA MARIA CRUCES
On appeal from the 197th District Court of Cameron County, Texas.
ORDER
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Benavides
OrderPer Curiam
Appellant Rosa Maria Cruces appeals from a denial of her application for writ of habeas corpus. The trial court's order did not explain the reason for its denial or include findings of fact and conclusions of law. See TEX. CODE. CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.072, § 7(a) (West, Westlaw through 2015 R.S.). We abated the appeal and remanded to allow the habeas court to clarify its order and to enter, if appropriate, findings of fact and conclusions of law, consistent with article 11.072, section 7(a) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See id. We further directed the trial court to conduct a hearing if necessary; to file a supplemental reporter's record for such hearing; and to file, as part of the supplemental record, the reporter's record of the February 24, 2015 original evidentiary hearing that the habeas court held concerning Cruces's application.
The State filed an objection concerning our directive to file the reporter's record of the original evidentiary hearing, which we construe as a motion to vacate. In light of the fundamental nature of the right to assistance of counsel, and our responsibility and habeas authority to give a meaningful evaluation of counsel's execution of that right, we overrule the State's objection and deny the State's motion to vacate. We reinstate that portion of our order of February 4, 2016 directing the habeas court to file a reporter's record for the evidentiary hearing held on February 24, 2015. The trial court shall file such reporter's record with the Clerk of this Court within thirty days from the date of this order. Should the trial court require more time to comply with the directions of this Court, it shall request an extension prior to the expiration of this deadline. This appeal shall remain abated until further order of this Court.
See Ex parte Cherry, 232 S.W.3d 305, 307 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2007, pet. ref'd) (relying, in part, on the fundamental nature of the right to assistance of counsel as reason to remand for findings of fact under article 11.072); Marin v. State, 851 S.W.2d 275, 278-79 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (holding that the fundamental right to assistance of counsel was less susceptible to waiver through "inaction alone."); see also Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 364 (2010) (noting that the Sixth Amendment guarantees a right to effective assistance of counsel).
See TEX. R. APP. P. 31.2 ("[T]he sole purpose of the [habeas] appeal is to do substantial justice to the parties"), 31.3 ("The appellate court will render whatever judgment and make whatever orders the law and the nature of the [habeas appeal] require."). --------
IT IS SO ORDERED.
PER CURIAM Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Delivered and filed the 3rd day of March, 2016.