Summary
This document is a Texas post-conviction habeas corpus filing concerning Keith Taylor, together with supporting affidavits and a judgment of conviction. The underlying judgment reflects a 2012 Travis County conviction for aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon, enhanced, and a 45-year sentence in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. The asserted grounds appear to include ineffective assistance of counsel, issues concerning mental health, and alleged failures involving evidence and investigation.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Taylor was entitled to post-conviction habeas relief based on alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
- Whether alleged failures concerning discovery, suppression of evidence, investigation, mental-health evidence, and presentation of defenses warranted habeas relief.
- Whether the submitted affidavits and allegations supported relief based on competency, actual innocence, or related constitutional claims.
Factual background
Taylor was convicted after waiving a jury trial and entering a guilty plea to aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. The judgment states that a firearm was used or exhibited, an enhancement paragraph was found true, and the court imposed a concurrent forty-five-year sentence. The post-conviction materials allege that trial counsel failed to investigate or present mental-health and medical-history evidence, failed to obtain or use discovery, and failed to pursue suppression and other defenses.
Procedural history
Keith Taylor was convicted in the 390th District Court of Travis County of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon, with an enhancement finding, and received a forty-five-year sentence. The submitted materials seek post-conviction relief and assert numerous grounds, including ineffective assistance of counsel, suppression and discovery issues, competency or mental-health concerns, and actual-innocence-related allegations. The provided text contains application forms, affidavits, and the judgment of conviction, but does not include a discernible merits opinion or final ruling on the application.