Herrera-type claim in Texas

2019A Herrera-type claim is a substantive claim in which the applicant asserts a “bare claim of innocence based solely on newly discovered evidence.” Ex parte Franklin, 72 S.W.3d 671, 675 (Tex. Crim.

2019A Herrera-type claim is a substantive claim in which the applicant asserts a “bare claim of innocence based solely on newly discovered evidence.” Ex parte Franklin, 72 S.W.3d 671, 675 (Tex. Crim.

2025“A Herrera-type claim involves a substantive claim in which applicant asserts his bare claim of innocence based solely on newly discovered evidence.” Id.

2025“A Herrera-type claim involves a substantive claim in which applicant asserts his bare claim of innocence based solely on newly discovered evidence.” Id.

2015Herrera To prevail on a Herrera-type claim in Texas habeas, this Court enunciated the standard in Elizondo that “an applicant must show by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable juror would have convicted him in light of newly discovered evidence.” Ex parte Elizondo, 947 S.W.2d 202 , 209 (Tex. Crim.

2015Herrera To prevail on a Herrera-type claim in Texas habeas, this Court enunciated the standard in Elizondo that “an applicant must show by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable juror would have convicted him in light of newly discovered evidence.” Ex parte Elizondo, 947 S.W.2d 202 , 209 (Tex. Crim.

2016Appellant asserts that his “Schlup-type claim is, in essence, a Herrera-type claim coupled with an independent trial-counsel deficien[cy] claim, without an independent showing of prejudice.” As explained by the court of criminal appeals, a Schlup-type claim is “one that ‘does not by itself provide a basis for relief,’ but is intertwined with constitutional error that renders a person’s conviction constitutionally invalid.” Ex parte Brown, 205 S.W.3d at 544–45 (quoting Schlup, 513 U.S. at 315 , 115 S. Ct. at 860 ); see Ex parte Villegas, 415 S.W.3d 885, 886 (citing Schlup, 513 U.S. at 314–15, 1

2016Appellant asserts that his “Schlup-type claim is, in essence, a Herrera-type claim coupled with an independent trial-counsel deficien[cy] claim, without an independent showing of prejudice.” As explained by the court of criminal appeals, a Schlup-type claim is “one that ‘does not by itself provide a basis for relief,’ but is intertwined with constitutional error that renders a person’s conviction constitutionally invalid.” Ex parte Brown, 205 S.W.3d at 544–45 (quoting Schlup, 513 U.S. at 315 , 115 S. Ct. at 860 ); see Ex parte Villegas, 415 S.W.3d 885, 886 (citing Schlup, 513 U.S. at 314–15, 1

2015This sort of actual innocence claim “is ‘not itself a constitutional claim, but instead a gateway through which a habeas petitioner must pass to have his otherwise barred constitutional claim considered on the merits.’” Id., quoting Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993). 7 If there were no question about the fairness of the criminal trial, a Herrera-type claim would have to fail unless the federal habeas court is itself convinced that those new facts unquestionably establishes innocence.

2015This sort of actual innocence claim “is ‘not itself a constitutional claim, but instead a gateway through which a habeas petitioner must pass to have his otherwise barred constitutional claim considered on the merits.’” Id., quoting Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993). 7 If there were no question about the fairness of the criminal trial, a Herrera-type claim would have to fail unless the federal habeas court is itself convinced that those new facts unquestionably establishes innocence.

2019Franklin, 72 S.W.3d at 678 ; see also Ex parte Calderon, 309 S.W.3d 64, 65 (Tex. Crim.

2015Franklin, 72 S.W.3d at 678 ; see also Ex parte Calderon, 309 S.W.3d 64, 65 (Tex.Crim.App.2010); Brown, 205 S.W.3d at 546 .

2016In a Schlup-type claim, the applicant “must show that the constitutional error probably resulted in the conviction of one who was actually innocent.” Ex parte Spencer, 337 S.W.3d 869, 878 (Tex. Crim.

2016In a Schlup-type claim, the applicant “must show that the constitutional error probably resulted in the conviction of one who was actually innocent.” Ex parte Spencer, 337 S.W.3d 869, 878 (Tex. Crim.

2016Appellant asserts that his “Schlup-type claim is, in essence, a Herrera-type claim coupled with an independent trial-counsel deficien[cy] claim, without an independent showing of prejudice.” As explained by the court of criminal appeals, a Schlup-type claim is “one that ‘does not by itself provide a basis for relief,’ but is intertwined with constitutional error that renders a person’s conviction constitutionally invalid.” Ex parte Brown, 205 S.W.3d at 544–45 (quoting Schlup, 513 U.S. at 315 , 115 S. Ct. at 860 ); see Ex parte Villegas, 415 S.W.3d 885, 886 (citing Schlup, 513 U.S. at 314–15, 1

2016Appellant asserts that his “Schlup-type claim is, in essence, a Herrera-type claim coupled with an independent trial-counsel deficien[cy] claim, without an independent showing of prejudice.” As explained by the court of criminal appeals, a Schlup-type claim is “one that ‘does not by itself provide a basis for relief,’ but is intertwined with constitutional error that renders a person’s conviction constitutionally invalid.” Ex parte Brown, 205 S.W.3d at 544–45 (quoting Schlup, 513 U.S. at 315 , 115 S. Ct. at 860 ); see Ex parte Villegas, 415 S.W.3d 885, 886 (citing Schlup, 513 U.S. at 314–15, 1

2015Ex Parte Tuley, 109 S.W.3d 388, 390 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002).

2015Ex Parte Tuley, 109 S.W.3d 388, 390 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002).