EX PARTE CHRISTOPHER FLORES Applicant (other)
Annotate this Case
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
NO. WR-72,670-01
EX PARTE CHRISTOPHER FLORES Applicant
ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
CAUSE NO. 990D00966 IN THE 41ST DISTRICT COURT
FROM EL PASO 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 was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Applicant contends in his application that he was denied his right to effective assistance of counsel during both the guilt and punishment phases of his trial. He also alleges that his right to due process was violated by a faulty police investigation. The trial court has entered findings of fact and conclusions of law and recommends that relief be denied.
After an independent review of the record provided to this Court, we agree with the trial court's recommendation. Relief on Applicant's claims should be denied. The trial court's findings of fact are supported by the record and are adopted by this Court as our own except for finding numbers 26, 27, 28, 29, 34, 35, 36, and 37, which this Court does not adopt. We have determined that Applicant fairly raised the claims in question on a form application in accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 73.1(c). Further, although this Court does not explicitly adopt a trial court's conclusions of law, we note that we disagree with conclusion numbers 3 and 5, which deal with Rule 73.1(c). This Court also notes that the trial court's finding number 81 and conclusion number 10 reference DNA testing under Chapter 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure when it should reference additional forensic testing under Art. 11.07 § 3(d) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.
Relief is denied.
Delivered: April 20, 2011
Do Not Publish
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
