Amaya, Reynaldo, WR-83,591-01

Amaya filed an 11.07 state habeas corpus application in the 185th District Court seeking relief on claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
The convicting court designated the issue of ineffective assistance, designations later not resolved, and indicated no evidentiary hearing was required.
Amaya asserts trial counsel’s performance was deficient and cites communications and events suggesting counsel’s incompetence; he seeks an evidentiary hearing and appointment of counsel.
The State proposed findings and an order denying relief, designating investigation as to ineffective assistance and recommending denial of habeas relief.
Amaya requests a de novo review, evidentiary hearing, and relief as a remedy for constitutional violations; the record shows the court did not resolve all designated issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Amaya was denied effective trial counsel	Amaya; ineffective assistance claimed	State; no unresolved controverted facts justify relief	Designated issues remain unresolved; evidentiary hearing warranted if disputed facts exist
Whether the designated issues were properly resolved	Amaya argues issues were not resolved and records omitted	State asserts no unresolved material facts require a hearing	Issues designated by the convicting court remain unaddressed in the record
Whether an evidentiary hearing is mandatory	Amaya requests an evidentiary hearing per Townsend v. Sain	State contends no fact disputes necessitate an evidentiary hearing	Evidentiary hearing is warranted where facts are in dispute or not adequately developed
Whether relief should be granted given Strickland standards	Amaya asserts deficient performance and prejudice under Strickland	State disputes prejudice or deficiency	Not resolved here; depends on proper findings of fact and hearing
Whether counsel’s resignation and communications support claims	Amaya cites counsel’s email and disciplinary matter as evidence of ineffective assistance	State disputes relevance of those communications to trial performance	Colloquy unresolved; requires evidentiary record.

Ex parte Brown, 158 S.W.3d 449 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (de novo review of state habeas findings possible when counsel’s effectiveness is challenged)
Ex parte Reed, 271 S.W.3d 698 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (state court findings may be reviewed for support by the record)
Ex parte Adams, 768 S.W.2d 281 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (procedural standards in habeas review)
Ex parte Olivares, 202 S.W.3d 771 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (requires particularity and supporting documentation for findings)
Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293 (1963) (evidentiary hearings in habeas corpus when facts are in dispute)
Pike v. Guarino, 492 F.3d 61 (1st Cir. 2007) (evidentiary development of newly discovered evidence in habeas)
Winston v. Pearson, 683 F.3d 489 (4th Cir. 2012) (state failure to hold full hearing may justify relief)
Hall v. Quarterman, 534 F.3d 365 (5th Cir. 2008) (full and fair evidentiary development of claims)
Barkell v. Crouse, 468 F.3d 684 (10th Cir. 2006) (diligent development of factual bases for claims)
Ex parte Amezquita, 223 S.W.3d 363 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) ( Strickland prejudice standard in Texas habeas)
Ex parte Rogers, 369 S.W.3d 858 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (prejudice shown in sentencing phase)
Titlow v. Burt, 680 F.3d 577 (6th Cir. 2012) (clear and convincing evidence to overcome presumptions)
Taylor v. Maddox, 366 F.3d 992 (9th Cir. 2004) (evidentiary standards in habeas reviewing)
Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286 (1969) (critical evaluation of habeas procedure)