habeas hearing in Texas

2023In our review, we may consider “the evidence adduced at the habeas hearing and the record as it existed before the habeas court at the time of the hearing.” Id.

2022A. Standard of review and applicable law When reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a habeas claim, we “review the record evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling and must uphold that ruling absent an abuse of discretion.” Kniatt v. State, 206 S.W.3d 657, 664 (Tex. Crim.

2005Consequently, if applicant can prove by clear and convincing evidence to this Court, in the exercise of its habeas corpus jurisdiction, that a jury would acquit him based on his newly discovered evidence, he is entitled to relief. 947 S.W.2d at 206-209 . [22] See Ex parte Peterson, 117 S.W.3d 804 , 818 & n. 60 (Tex.Crim.App.2003) (per curiam) (defendant bears burden of proving double jeopardy claim by preponderance of evidence on writ of habeas corpus); Ex parte Kimes, 872 S.W.2d 700, 703 (Tex.Crim.App.1993) (defendant-applicant bears the burden of proof at a habeas hearing to show a constitut

2005See Ex parte Peterson, 117 S.W.3d 804 , 818 & n. 60 (Tex.Crim.App.2003) (per curiam) (defendant bears burden of proving double jeopardy claim by preponderance of evidence on writ of habeas corpus); Ex parte Kimes, 872 S.W.2d 700, 703 (Tex.Crim.App.1993) (defendant-applicant bears the burden of proof at a habeas hearing to show a constitutional violation); see also Ex parte Thomas, 906 S.W.2d 22, 24 (Tex.Crim.App.1995) ("[t]he burden of proof in a writ of habeas corpus is on the applicant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence his factual allegations”). .

2011“Clear and convincing evidence is defined ‘as that measure or degree of proof which will produce in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established.’” Id. (quoting State v. Addington , 588 S.W.2d 569, 570 (Tex. 1979)). [11] At the habeas hearing, the habeas court took judicial notice of the original court file in this case as well as the affidavits, documents, and photographs that the parties presented in their habeas pleadings.

2010The stepsons claimed at the habeas hearing “that their natural father relentlessly manipulated and threatened them into making such allegations against applicant in order to retaliate against their natural mother, his ex-wife, for marrying applicant years before.” Id.

2022See State v. Ybarra, 942 S.W.2d 35, 36-37 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1996, pet. dism’d) (appellate court reviews the record as it existed at the habeas hearing and is not limited to testimony and evidence adduced at hearing).

2010See State v. Ybarra, 942 S.W.2d 35, 36-37 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1996, pet. dism'd) (explaining that review of habeas corpus proceeding is not limited to testimony and evidence adduced at the hearing, but includes the record as it existed before the trial court at the habeas hearing); see also Ex parte Turner, 612 S.W.2d 611, 612 (Tex.Crim.App. 1981) (holding that trial judge who presided over revocation of probation hearing and habeas corpus action could properly take judicial notice of evidence presented in revocation of probation hearing during habeas corpus action at which State offered

2022App. 1998); Galvan v. State, 869 S.W.2d 526, 528 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1993, pet. ref’d) (when reviewing an appeal from the denial of a pretrial application for writ of habeas corpus, we review the record as it existed before the trial court at the time of the habeas hearing).

2022App. 1998); Galvan v. State, 869 S.W.2d 526, 528 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1993, pet. ref’d) (when reviewing an appeal from the denial of a pretrial application for writ of habeas corpus, we review the record as it existed before the trial court at the time of the habeas hearing).

2016Elizondo, 947 S.W.2d at 206; see also Ex parte Franklin, 72 S.W.3d 671, 677-78 (Tex. Crim.

2016Elizondo, 947 S.W.2d at 206; see also Ex parte Franklin, 72 S.W.3d 671, 677-78 (Tex. Crim.

2024See Villanueva, 252 S.W.3d at 394, 395 ; Ex parte Hargett, 819 S.W.2d 866, 869 (Tex. Crim.

2024See Villanueva, 252 S.W.3d at 394, 395 ; Ex parte Hargett, 819 S.W.2d 866, 869 (Tex. Crim.

2005Consequently, if applicant can prove by clear and convincing evidence to this Court, in the exercise of its habeas corpus jurisdiction, that a jury would acquit him based on his newly discovered evidence, he is entitled to relief. 947 S.W.2d at 206-209 . [22] See Ex parte Peterson, 117 S.W.3d 804 , 818 & n. 60 (Tex.Crim.App.2003) (per curiam) (defendant bears burden of proving double jeopardy claim by preponderance of evidence on writ of habeas corpus); Ex parte Kimes, 872 S.W.2d 700, 703 (Tex.Crim.App.1993) (defendant-applicant bears the burden of proof at a habeas hearing to show a constitut

2005See Ex parte Peterson, 117 S.W.3d 804 , 818 & n. 60 (Tex.Crim.App.2003) (per curiam) (defendant bears burden of proving double jeopardy claim by preponderance of evidence on writ of habeas corpus); Ex parte Kimes, 872 S.W.2d 700, 703 (Tex.Crim.App.1993) (defendant-applicant bears the burden of proof at a habeas hearing to show a constitutional violation); see also Ex parte Thomas, 906 S.W.2d 22, 24 (Tex.Crim.App.1995) ("[t]he burden of proof in a writ of habeas corpus is on the applicant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence his factual allegations”). .

2004See Ex parte Peterson, 117 S.W.3d 804 , 818 & n. 60 (Tex.Crim.App.2003) (per curiam) (defendant bears burden of proving double jeopardy claim by preponderance of evidence on writ of habeas corpus); Ex parte Kimes, 872 S.W.2d 700, 703 (Tex.Crim.App.1993) (defendant-applicant bears the burden of proof at a habeas hearing to show a constitutional violation); see also Ex parte Thomas, 906 S.W.2d 22, 24 (Tex.Crim.App.1995) (“[t]he burden of proof in a writ of habeas corpus is on the applicant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence his factual allegations”); Ex parte Adams, 768 S.W.2d 281, 287-

2004PROC. art. 46.02(b) (a defendant is "competent to stand trial unless proved incompetent by a preponderance of the evidence"); id. at art. 46.05(k) (execution shall be stayed if trial court makes a finding by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is incompetent to be executed); see also State v. Lott, 779 N.E.2d at 1015 (holding that defendant "bears the burden of establishing that he is mentally retarded by a preponderance of the evidence"). [46] See Ex parte Peterson, 117 S.W.3d 804 , 818 & n. 60 (Tex.Crim.App.2003) (per curiam) (defendant bears burden of proving double jeopardy

2015"A habeas claim is not ordinarily thought to 'accrue' while the inmate is housed in prison because habeas claims challenge the fact or duration of confinement (orrestraint) rather than the conditions ofconfinement." Exparte Rieck, 144 S.W.3d 510,519 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004).

2015"A habeas claim is not ordinarily thought to 'accrue' while the inmate is housed in prison 2 because habeas claims challenge the fact or duration of confinement (or restraint) rather than the conditions of confinement." Ex parte Rieck, 144 S.W.3d 510,519 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004).

2007Dewberry v. State , 4 S.W.3d 735, 747-48 (Tex. Crim.

2004Dewberry v. State , 4 S.W.3d 735, 747-48 (Tex. Crim.

2024Ex parte Martinez, 560 S.W.3d 681, 695 (Tex. App.—San Antonio, 2018 pet ref’d) (citing Ex parte Coleman, 350 S.W.3d 155, 160 (Tex. App.—San Antonio, 2011 no pet.)).

2023We review the habeas court’s ruling by reviewing “the evidence adduced at the habeas hearing and the record as it existed before the habeas court at the time of the hearing.” Id.

2021ANDRUS — 11 suggested that the ex-girlfriend’s original statements inculpating Applicant could have been impeached because the ex-girlfriend said at the habeas hearing that Applicant committing the offense was “impossible.”57 Turning to the issue of prejudice, the Supreme Court explained that “the reviewing court must consider ‘the totality of the available mitigation evidence—both that adduced at trial, and the evidence adduced in the habeas proceeding”’—and ‘reweig[h] it against the evidence in aggravation.’”58 A finding of prejudice requires “a reasonable probability that at least one juror

2021ANDRUS — 11 suggested that the ex-girlfriend’s original statements inculpating Applicant could have been impeached because the ex-girlfriend said at the habeas hearing that Applicant committing the offense was “impossible.”57 Turning to the issue of prejudice, the Supreme Court explained that “the reviewing court must consider ‘the totality of the available mitigation evidence—both that adduced at trial, and the evidence adduced in the habeas proceeding”’—and ‘reweig[h] it against the evidence in aggravation.’”58 A finding of prejudice requires “a reasonable probability that at least one juror

2025See Ex parte Amezquita, 223 S.W.3d 363, 367 (Tex. Crim.

2010See Ex parte Amezquita , 223 S.W.3d 363, 367 (Tex. Crim.

2025See id. at 331 (“The trial judge saw the prosecutor and could judge his credibility and integrity . . . .”).

2007See Ex parte Wheeler , 203 S.W.3d at 326 (holding court of appeals should have reviewed the decision of the trial judge at the habeas hearing for abuse of discretion even though a visiting judge presided over the underlying trial, when the trial judge communicated with the visiting judge concerning the issues, quizzed the prosecutor about his reasons for asking the improper question, and reviewed the transcript of relevant trial testimony).

2024See Villanueva, 252 S.W.3d at 394, 395 ; Ex parte Hargett, 819 S.W.2d 866, 869 (Tex. Crim.

2008App., No. AP-75,720, 2008 WL 696476 , delivered March 5, 2008) (slip op. at *2, n. 8) (same); Ex parte Villanueva, 252 S.W.3d 391, 397 (Tex.Crim.App.2008) ("short of suspending the writ, the Legislature may regulate how a court exercises its original habeas jurisdiction by enacting particular procedural mechanisms that govern the submission and presentation of an application for writ of habeas corpus."). [2] See, e.g., Ex parte Simpson, 136 S.W.3d 660, 669 (Tex.Crim.App.2004) ("It is generally fruitless, if not counterproductive, to file original evidentiary materials relating to a habeas clai

2024Ex parte Rubac, 611 S.W.2d 848, 849 (Tex. Crim.

2019Ex parte Rubac, 611 S.W.2d 848, 849 (Tex. Crim.

2015An application for writ of habeas corpus, although sworn, “is but a pleading and does not prove itself.” Ex parte Wells, 332 S.W.2d 565, 565 (Tex. Crim.

2010See Ex parte Wells 169 Tex.Crim. 127 , 332 S.W.2d 565, 565 (1960) ("The application for the writ, although sworn to, is but a pleading and does not prove itself.").

2008After noting that the trial judge who presided at Cherry's sentencing had retired and that another judge ruled on Cherry's applications for writs of habeas corpus, this Court reversed and remanded the cause for a new habeas hearing because the basis of the habeas court's decision to deny relief was not sufficiently clear from the record "to permit us to determine the merits of Cherry's claims that his rights were violated by depriving him of his choice of paid counsel." Ex parte Cherry, 232 S.W.3d 305, 307-08 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 2007, pet. ref'd).

2008After noting that the trial judge who presided at Cherry’s sentencing had retired and that another judge ruled on Cherry’s applications for writs of habeas corpus, this Court reversed and remanded the cause for a new habeas hearing because the basis of the habeas court’s decision to deny relief was not sufficiently clear from the record “to permit us to determine the merits of Cherry’s claims that his rights were violated by depriving him of his choice of paid counsel.” Ex parte Cherry, 232 S.W.3d 305, 307-08 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 2007, pet. refd).

2025Accordingly, “[a]ppellate review of the court’s ruling is not limited to the evidence adduced at the habeas hearing, but may include the record as it existed before the trial court at the time of the hearing.” Id.

2018“Appellate review of the [trial] court’s ruling is not limited to the evidence adduced at the habeas hearing, but may include the record as it existed before the trial court at the time of the hearing.” Id.

2015Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995).

2012See Kyles, 514 U.S. at 438 , 115 5.Ct. at 1568, 131 L.Ed.2d 490 .