The opinion
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
NO. WR-92,975-01
EX PARTE DANIEL JOHN RAMOS, Applicant
ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
CAUSE NO. W10-22551-L(A) IN THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 5
FROM DALLAS COUNTY
Per curiam.
ORDER
Applicant was convicted of burglary of a habitation and sentenced to 25 years’ imprisonment.
Applicant filed this application for a writ of habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and the
district clerk forwarded it to this Court. See TEX . CODE CRIM . PROC. art. 11.07.
Applicant contends that he is being denied due process because, since June 30, 2020, he has
been held pursuant to a parole revocation warrant which has prevented him from bonding out on a
new charge. The current record before this Court suggests, but does not establish, that Applicant
received a preliminary revocation hearing while the new charge was pending. The record is unclear
on this matter because the notice and preliminary hearing materials are undated and unsigned. In
addition, the State asserts that it “is not in possession of the information needed to address
2
Applicant’s claim” because such evidence is in the Board’s possession. The State requests that the
trial court enter an order designating issues and communicate with the Board to address Applicant’s
claims.
Applicant has alleged facts that, if true, might entitle him to relief. Morrissey v. Brewer, 408
U.S. 471, 488 (1972); Ex parte Williams, 738 S.W.2d 257, 259-60 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987).
Accordingly, the record should be developed. The trial court is the appropriate forum for findings
of fact. TEX . CODE CRIM . PROC. art. 11.07, § 3(d). The trial court shall order the Texas Department
of Criminal Justice’s Office of the General Counsel to obtain a response from a person with
knowledge of relevant facts. In developing the record, the trial court may use any means set out in
Article 11.07, § 3(d).
The response shall state whether Applicant is being held pursuant to a parole revocation
warrant, and if so, the date upon which that warrant was executed. The response shall state whether
(and if so, when): (a) the pre-revocation warrant was executed; (b) Applicant was advised of his
rights in the revocation process; (c) Applicant requested a preliminary hearing; and (d) Applicant
was afforded a preliminary hearing. If Applicant is also being held on new charges, the response
shall state whether Applicant has been indicted on those charges, and if so, when the indictment was
returned.
If the trial court elects to hold a hearing, it shall determine whether Applicant is represented
by counsel. If Applicant is not represented by counsel, the trial court shall determine whether
Applicant is indigent. If Applicant is indigent and wishes to be represented by counsel, the trial court
shall appoint an attorney to represent Applicant at the hearing. TEX . CODE CRIM . PROC. art. 26.04.
If counsel is appointed or retained, the trial court shall immediately notify this Court of counsel’s
3
name.
The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether Applicant
is receiving due process in the parole revocation proceedings. The trial court may make any other
findings and conclusions that it deems appropriate in response to Applicant’s claim.
The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law within ninety days from
the date of this order. The district clerk shall then immediately forward to this Court the trial court’s
findings and conclusions and the record developed on remand, including, among other things,
affidavits, motions, objections, proposed findings and conclusions, orders, and transcripts from
hearings and depositions. See TEX . R. APP. P. 73.4(b)(4). Any extensions of time must be requested
by the trial court and obtained from this Court.
Filed: October 20, 2021
Do not publish