Nesby, Rodgy Lee, WR-64,101-07

Background

Applicant Rodgy (Rodgy/Redgey) Lee Nesby, pro se inmate at William P. Clements Unit, filed an objection and general traverse to the State’s answer and seeks habeas relief alleging ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel and denial of due process.
Nesby asserts he has not received an evidentiary hearing or opportunity to fully develop the habeas record and requests expansion of the record and an evidentiary hearing.
He alleges the habeas court failed to order the warden to produce him and/or to compel relevant custody/custodian action, impeding habeas process.
Nesby argues counsel’s ineffectiveness deprived him of a meaningful appeal (and an out‑of‑time appeal), citing federal and Texas authorities that such failures ground habeas relief.
He invokes procedural‑default doctrine exceptions (cause and prejudice; actual innocence) and cites decisions permitting courts to consider merits when cause and prejudice are shown.
Relief requested: issuance of the writ of habeas corpus, expansion of the record, and an evidentiary hearing to return him to a procedural point where a meaningful review can occur.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether applicant is entitled to expansion of the habeas record and an evidentiary hearing	Nesby: habeas court failed to hold an evidentiary hearing and expand the record on ineffective assistance claims; thus he is entitled to a hearing and record development	State (implied): procedural posture and prior denials foreclose further development unless applicant shows cause and prejudice	No judicial ruling contained in this filing; applicant renews request for hearing and expanded record
Whether ineffective assistance of trial or appellate counsel deprived Nesby of a meaningful appeal	Nesby: counsel’s failures violated 5th, 6th, 14th Amendments and Texas Constitution; ineffectiveness excuses procedural bars and justifies habeas relief or out‑of‑time appeal	State (implied): prior habeas denials and procedural defaults negate successive claims unless cause and prejudice shown	No ruling in this document; applicant alleges prejudice and requests relief
Whether the habeas court/warden complied with production and custody procedures	Nesby: judge failed to order the warden to produce him; warden is proper custodian and must be compelled for habeas proceedings	State (implied): judicial process satisfied or procedural defects do not warrant relief absent showing of material factual dispute	No ruling here; applicant asserts procedural defect and requests corrective orders
Whether procedural default should be excused (cause & prejudice / actual innocence)	Nesby: cites cause and prejudice authorities and claims ineffective assistance and lack of hearing as cause; requests court consider merits despite successive filings	State (implied): applicant bears burden to show cause and prejudice; prior denials suggest procedural default	No ruling in this filing; applicant asks Criminal Appeals to find cause and prejudice and reach merits

Key Cases Cited

Washington v. Delo, 51 F.3d 756 (8th Cir.) (district court may consider merits of successive habeas claims if petitioner shows cause and prejudice)
Heffernan v. Norris, 48 F.3d 331 (8th Cir.) (procedural bar may be excused by cause and prejudice or actual innocence)
Evitts v. Lucey, 372 U.S. 387 (U.S. 1963) (right to effective assistance of counsel on appeal where appeal is of right)
Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 (U.S. 1963) (indigent defendant entitled to counsel on first appeal as of right)
Goodwin v. Johnson, 132 F.3d 162 (5th Cir.) (standards and prejudice analysis for appellate ineffectiveness claims)
Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519 (Tex. Crim. App.) (denial of meaningful appeal due to ineffective assistance can be a basis for habeas relief)
Ex parte Hargett, 819 S.W.2d 866 (Tex. Crim. App.) (discussing entitlement to evidentiary hearings and record expansion on habeas review)