EX PARTE CUONG QUOC LY, Applicant (Other)

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS

NO. WR-75,248-01
EX PARTE CUONG QUOC LY, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
CAUSE NO. 44907
IN THE 240th DISTRICT COURT FROM FORT BEND 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 the offense of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver and sentenced to imprisonment for forty-two years. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Ly v. State, 273 S.W.3d 778 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, pet. ref'd).

The Applicant alleges that the trial court abused its discretion when it allowed the State to introduce illegally seized evidence, trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance when he failed to file a motion to suppress the evidence, trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance when he failed to investigate and properly file pre-trial motions, trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance when he failed to investigate and present mitigating factors on behalf of Applicant and when he failed to inform Applicant of his right to a pre-sentence investigation, the trial court's sentence violated Applicant's fundamental right to due process, and the trial court's sentence is arbitrary and an abuse of discretion.

The trial court, after holding an evidentiary hearing, recommends that relief be granted as to ground four only, with all other relief requested denied. We agree, in part. This Court adopts the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law as it pertains to Applicant's grounds one, two, three, five and six. However, after an independent review of the record, we do not find that Applicant is entitled to relief in ground four. Specifically, we do not believe Applicant has shown how he was harmed by any alleged deficiencies on the part of counsel during the punishment phase of his trial.

 

Delivered: November 2, 2011

Do Not Publish