Ex Parte Charles Hamilton, Jr., Applicant

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of burglary of a habitation, enhanced by prior sequential felony convictions, and sentenced to life imprisonment. Applicant’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief, and the Third Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction, noting that Applicant had been advised of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se brief, but that no pro se brief had been received. Hamilton v. State, No. 03-09-00500-CR (Tex. App. – Austin, July 15, 2010).

Applicant contends, inter alia, that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance because she failed to investigate the validity and availability of the enhancement allegations, and failed to investigate or request that Applicant be evaluated for competency to stand trial. Applicant also alleges that he intended to file a pro se brief in response to appellate counsel’s Anders brief, and that he requested copies of the record in order to do so, but did not receive the record until after the court of appeals had affirmed his conviction.