Gonzalez, Isaac, PD-1322-15

Isaac Gonzalez, an indigent prisoner convicted of aggravated sexual assault and indecency with a child, sought appointment of counsel to pursue habeas relief under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 1.051 and art. 11.074.
Trial court entered a general, non‑specific order denying Gonzalez’s June 12, 2015 motion for appointment of counsel.
Gonzalez timely filed a notice of appeal from the denial and requested records; the 13th Court of Appeals sent letters alleging defects (untimely perfection; no final appealable order).
The 13th Court of Appeals issued a memorandum opinion treating the appeal as one from a Texas Court of Criminal Appeals 11.07 denial (WR‑64,680‑03) belonging to another appellant and dismissed Gonzalez’s appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Gonzalez filed this petition for discretionary review, arguing the court of appeals confused his appeal with another appellant’s 11.07 matter and that the appeal should be reinstated or the trial court ordered to appoint counsel to pursue substantial ineffective‑assistance claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 13th Court of Appeals properly dismissed Gonzalez’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction	Gonzalez: the court misidentified the appealed order (treated it as an 11.07 denial belonging to another inmate) and thus erroneously dismissed his appeal from the trial court’s denial of appointment of counsel	State/COA: the court concluded the order appealed was not an appealable order and that it had no jurisdiction over habeas matters seeking relief from final felony convictions	The 13th Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction; Gonzalez petitions for discretionary review to correct that dismissal
Whether Gonzalez was entitled to appointment of counsel under article 1.051 / 11.074 to pursue habeas claims	Gonzalez: he is indigent, has substantial ineffective‑assistance claims, and Martinez/Trevino principles support appointment for meaningful initial collateral review	State: (implicit) trial court’s denial stands; the COA found no appealable order so did not reach appointment merits	Not decided on the merits by the COA; Gonzalez asks CCA to take judicial notice and remand to appoint counsel

Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 445 (1953) (pro se filings entitled to liberal construction)
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (pro se pleadings held to less stringent standards)
Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012) (procedural default excused for substantial IATC claims when initial collateral review lacked adequate counsel)
Trevino v. Thaler, 569 U.S. 413 (2013) (Martinez applies where state procedure makes it unlikely ineffective‑assistance claims can be raised on direct appeal)
Moore v. Dempsey, 261 U.S. 86 (1923) (habeas corpus available to remedy due process violations)
Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717 (1961) (habeas available regardless of apparent guilt)
Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2 (1866) (constitutional protections in criminal punishment)