Hughes, Candy Hill, WR-75,964-02

Candy Hill Hughes, an inmate, files a pro se motion for leave to file a writ of mandamus in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
Relator alleges Harris County District Clerk Chris Daniel violated Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Art. 11.07 by failing to transmit a habeas corpus application, responses, and a certification to the CCA.
Relator asserts he sent letters (Exhibits A-B) requesting transmission on 11-13-2015 and 11-21-2015, but no such transmission occurred.
The underlying case is Ex Parte Candy Hill Hughes, CAUSE NO. 1169973-B, in Harris County, involving a prior murder conviction and a writ of habeas corpus.
Respondent is charged with ministerial duties to receive and transmit court documents under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Art. 11.07 Sec. 3(c), and to transmit related documents to the CCA.
Exhibits and the State’s answer are part of the record; no final dispositive ruling appears in the text provided.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Respondent violated Art. 11.07 by failing to transmit documents to the CCA.	Hughes argues Respondent did not transmit the habeas corpus application, answers, or certification as required.	Daniel contends he fulfilled or is not shown to have violated the ministerial duties; transmission is alleged but no ruling provided in text.	No final ruling appears in the provided text.
Whether habeas corpus relief via mandamus is appropriate to compel ministerial transmission by the clerk.	Relator seeks mandamus to compel transmission of documents.	Respondent opposes or has not been shown to have violated the statute.	Unknown from the text; no dispositive holding stated.
Whether any grounds for relief about trial counsel or procedural barriers are cognizable in habeas to justify relief.	Relator asserts ineffective assistance claims and other trial issues.	State argues issues are waived or not cognizable in habeas, citing case law.	Not determined in the provided text.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes two-part standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Hernandez v. State, 726 S.W.2d 53 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (Strickland standard adopted in Texas)
Mitchell v. State, 68 S.W.3d 640 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (reasonable probability of different outcome required)
Narvaiz v. State, 840 S.W.2d 415 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (application of Strickland standard in Texas)
Ex parte Maldonado, 688 S.W.2d 114 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (requires sufficient facts to entitle relief in habeas)
Ex parte Empey, 757 S.W.2d 771 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (burden of proof in habeas matters)
Ex parte Adams, 768 S.W.2d 281 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (preponderance standard in habeas cases)
Ex parte Banks, 769 S.W.2d 539 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (habeas remedies; direct appeal considerations)
Calderon v. State, 950 S.W.2d 121 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1997) (opening statements and strategic decisions)
Ex parte Clore, 690 S.W.2d 899 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (habeas scope and jurisdictional considerations)
Ex parte McGowan, 645 S.W.2d 286 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) (habeas purposes; record challenges generally not for habeas)
Ex parte Butler, 884 S.W.2d 782 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (appellate counsel standards in habeas)
Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (U.S. 2000) (standards for appellate counsel claims)
Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 (U.S. 1985) (adequacy of appellate advocacy)