EX PARTE BRANDON HUTCHISON, Applicant (Other)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NOS. WR-79,005-01, -02, -03, -04, -05, -06, -07 & -08 EX PARTE BRANDON HUTCHISON, Applicant ON APPLICATIONS FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS CAUSE NOS. D-1-DC-09-301217, D-1-DC-09-301218, D-1-DC-09-301219, D-1-DC-09-301220, D-1-DC-09-301221, D-1-DC-09-301222, D-1-DC-09-301223 & D-1-DC-09-301224 IN THE 147TH DISTRICT COURT FROM TRAVIS COUNTY Per curiam. ORDER 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 these applications for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of eight counts of aggravated assault and sentenced to imprisonment for two terms of twenty years, one term of ten years, one term of seven years, two terms of four years, and two terms of two years. He did not appeal his convictions. Applicant contends, among other things, that trial counsel failed to conduct an investigation 2 and review videos of the offenses. On February 13, 2013, we remanded these applications for a response from counsel and findings of fact and conclusions of law from the trial court. On remand, after reviewing counsel s response, the trial court made findings and conclusions and recommended that we deny relief. We agree that Applicant s grounds in the -02, -06, -07, and -08 applications are without merit. Accordingly, these applications are denied. Applicant s sentences in the -01, -03, -04, and -05 applications have discharged. We do not have jurisdiction under Article 11.07 if an applicant s sentences have discharged and he is not confined. Confinement means confinement for any offense or any collateral consequence resulting from the conviction that is the basis of the instant habeas corpus. TEX . CODE CRIM . PROC. art. 11.07, ยง3(c); see also Ex parte Harrington, 310 S.W.3d 452, 457 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) ( That an applicant is not in the actual physical custody of the government at the time of filing does not preclude his application nor deprive the trial court of jurisdiction to consider it ). Applicant, however, failed to raise a collateral consequence. Accordingly, the -01, -03, -04, and -05 applications are dismissed. Filed: June 12, 2013 Do not publish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.
