IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NO. WR-85,310-01

EX PARTE THOMAS LITTLE, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS CAUSE NO. 14-0698-CR-C-A IN THE 25TH DISTRICT COURT FROM GUADALUPE COUNTY K EASLER, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which K ELLER, P.J., joined.

DISSENTING OPINION I dissent to the Court’s granting Thomas Little habeas relief on the basis of an alleged double-jeopardy violation. For the reasons outlined in my concurring opinion in Ex parte Marascio,1 I would deny Little’s double-jeopardy claim because his multiple-punishments double-jeopardy claim may not be raised for the first time in a collateral proceeding.

Instead, I would remand the case to the habeas court to comply with this Court’s remand order instructing the judge to “make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to

Ex parte Marascio, 471 S.W.3d 832, 833 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (Keasler, J., concurring).

LITTLE DISSENT—2 whether the performance of [Little’s] counsel was deficient and, if so, whether counsel’s deficient performance prejudiced [Little].” Although the habeas judge ordered Little’s appellate counsel to file an affidavit answering Little’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, the judge did not enter any findings of fact or conclusions of law on this claim.

Alternatively, we could grant relief on Little’s ineffective-assistance claim in light of counsel’s admission that his failure to allege a double-jeopardy violation on direct appeal was deficient conduct.

Because the Court neither remands nor addresses the merits of the only properly- raised claim in Little’s application, I dissent.

Filed: April 12, 2017 Do not publish