EX PARTE STEVEN CLAYTON SKIDMORE (other)

Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion     Close This Window

span.WPParaBox { padding: 0px; width: 100%; margin: 0px; display: block } div.WPParaBoxWrapper { padding: 0px; float: left } p { margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1px } hr { height: 0.0125in; background-color: black } body { font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal }

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-70,322-01

EX PARTE STEVEN CLAYTON SKIDMORE, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. F41009A IN THE 18TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

FROM JOHNSON COUNTY

           Per curiam.

O R D E R

            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 writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant pleaded guilty to one count of robbery, one count of evading arrest with a motor vehicle, and one count of aggravated assault of a public servant, and was sentenced to ten years’ probation for the robbery count, ten years’ deferred adjudication for the evading arrest count, and seven years’ imprisonment for the aggravated assault count. He did not appeal his conviction.

            In this writ, Applicant alleges that his plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered because he pleaded guilty in one count to an unauthorized sentence, that he was not timely arraigned on these charges, that the indictment was defective, that his plea agreement was breached, and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court has determined that there are no controverted, previously unresolved issues of fact material to the legality of Applicant’s confinement. We agree. However, because Applicant’s community supervision had not been revoked in two out of the three counts of the indictment, this Court does not have jurisdiction to consider Applicant’s habeas claims as they pertain to those two counts. Therefore, Applicant’s claims are dismissed as to counts one and three, and denied as to count four of his conviction.

 

            IT IS SO ORDERED on this the 20th day of August, 2008.

 

Filed: August 20, 2008

Do not publish