Cosio, Jesus E., WR-84,870-02

Applicant Jesus E. Cosio was convicted of two counts of aggravated sexual assault (sentences of 15 and 25 years) and two counts of indecency with a child (placed on 10-year community supervision).
The court of appeals reversed one indecency conviction and initially reversed and remanded other convictions; this Court reversed that disposition and sent the case back to the court of appeals, which ultimately affirmed the convictions on remand.
Because Cosio received community supervision on the indecency convictions, those convictions are not "final" for purposes of Article 11.07 habeas review.
Cosio alleges ineffective assistance of trial counsel for his aggravated sexual-assault convictions and has pleaded facts that, if true, could entitle him to relief under Strickland.
The Court determined that additional factual development is required and remanded to the trial court to obtain counsel’s responses and to make findings of fact and conclusions of law on specified habeas grounds. The application is held in abeyance pending those findings, with set deadlines.

Issue	Cosio's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Finality of convictions for habeas review	Convictions should be reviewable on Article 11.07	Convictions on probation are not final for Article 11.07 review	Convictions with community supervision are not final; habeas review declined for those indecency counts
Validity of prior appellate fragmentation/remand	Prior reversals and remands do not preclude review of remaining claims	Appellate history requires addressing remaining points on remand	Court directed appellate and procedural posture resolved; appeals ultimately affirmed on remand
Ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims for aggravated sexual assault	Trial counsel’s performance was deficient and prejudiced Cosio (grounds 3,8,10,11,13,14)	State did not resolve factual disputes at habeas stage	Allegations sufficient to require factual development; trial court must obtain counsel’s response and make findings under Strickland
Need for trial-court factfinding and counsel appointment	Cosio needs evidentiary development and counsel if indigent	State defers to procedure; factual development belongs to trial court	Remanded to trial court to gather responses, hold hearing if appropriate, appoint counsel if indigent, and issue findings within set deadlines

Ex parte Young, 418 S.W.2d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967) (procedure for transmitting habeas applications)
Ex parte Renier, 734 S.W.2d 349 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (probationary convictions are not final for Article 11.07 purposes)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-pronged ineffective-assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
Ex parte Patterson, 993 S.W.2d 114 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (habeas standards for ineffective assistance)
Ex parte Rodriguez, 334 S.W.2d 294 (Tex. Crim. App. 1960) (trial court is proper forum for fact findings in habeas matters)
Cosio v. State, 318 S.W.3d 917 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2010) (appellate reversal and remand history)
Cosio v. State, 353 S.W.3d 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (this Court remanded to court of appeals to address remaining points)
Cosio v. State, 358 S.W.3d 762 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2011) (court of appeals’ affirmation on remand)