Perkins, Troy Lee, WR-72,726-34

Perkins was convicted of four aggravated robberies with a deadly weapon and sentenced to 12 years on each, with sentences running concurrently.
He pled guilty on January 7, 2008, and waived his right to appeal.
Applicant sought transfer to a mental illness court under Health & Safety Code §616.002 based on alleged psychiatric issues.
Applicant alleged denial of special needs representation and related due process/ineffective assistance claims.
Applicant claimed inadequate psychiatric care and threats in prison, and challenged the speedy-trial timeline.
The district court issued an order designating issues, appointing a special master to resolve factual questions, and later issued findings and conclusions denying habeas relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mental illness court transfer entitlement	Perkins seeks transfer under §616.002	State opposes transfer; no entitlement shown	Denied; no entitlement proven.
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Perkins received ineffective representation	Counsel's performance deemed not ineffective	Denied; no cognizable ineffective-assistance showing.
Speedy trial entitlement in habeas	Speedy-trial rights violated	Speedy-trial claims not cognizable in habeas corpus	Denied; habeas review not the proper vehicle for speedy-trial claims.
Special needs/psychiatric care constitutional issues	Due process violation due to psychiatric neglect	Conditions of confinement generally not cognizable	Denied; not a cognizable constitutional issue in this habeas context.
Court procedures and cognizable rights	Procedural missteps alleged	No specific procedural violations shown	Denied; no proven cognizable constitutional defect.

Ex parte Maldonado, 688 S.W.2d 114 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (burden of proof in habeas; conclusory allegations insufficient)
Ex parte Adams, 768 S.W.2d 281 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (require proof by preponderance; not just conclusions)
Ex parte Young, 418 S.W.2d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967) (proof standards for governmental action; reliance on allegations)
Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215 (1986) (constitutional concerns limited to significant deprivations of liberty)
Ex parte Williams, 65 S.W.3d 656 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (cognizable habeas claims limited to jurisdictional or fundamental rights)
Ex parte Owenby, 749 S.W.2d 880 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (speedy trial claims not cognizable in post-conviction habeas)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Hernandez v. State, 726 S.W.2d 53 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (applies Strickland standard in Texas)
Ex parte Watson, 601 S.W.2d 350 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (limitations on habeas review scope)
Ex parte Sadberry, 864 S.W.2d 541 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (procedure safeguards in habeas)
Ex parte McCain, 67 S.W.3d 204 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (cognizable grounds for habeas relief)
Ex parte McPherson, 32 S.W.3d 860 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (habeas proceedings limited to fundamental rights)