×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Prima Facie Showing of Actual Innocence Defeats Texas Successive Writ Rule
On April 4, 2007, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that a state prisoner may defeat the rule against filing a successive state application for a writ of habeas corpus, Article 11.07, Section 4, Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, by making a prima facie showing of actual innocence.
Leland Harold Brooks, a Texas state prisoner, filed a subsequent application for a writ of habeas corpus in state court challenging his conviction for possession of a controlled substance claiming actual innocence and that he would not have been convicted but for various unconstitutional actions by the state. The Court of Criminal Appeals recognized that the subsequent -application rule was enacted in response to the U.S. Supreme Court?s decision in Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 115 S.Ct. 851, 130 L.Ed.2d 808 (1995). Schlup created an actual innocence exception to the prohibition against subsequent federal habeas corpus petitions if the petitioner showed that a constitutional violation ?more likely than not? resulted in the conviction of an innocent person. The court considered whether this preponderance-of-the-evidence-of-innocence standard should apply to subsequent state habeas applications and decided that it would be sufficient for a state habeas applicant to make a prima facie showing of actual innocence to overcome the subsequent habeas application prohibition of Section 4 and allow the court to consider the merits of the constitutional claims in the application.
In this case, the court held that Brooks failed to make the prima facie showing of innocence required before the court could consider his constitutional claims. Therefore, the application was successive under Article 11.07, Section 4. See: Ex Parte Brooks, 219 S.W.3d 396 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007).
Leland Harold Brooks, a Texas state prisoner, filed a subsequent application for a writ of habeas corpus in state court challenging his conviction for possession of a controlled substance claiming actual innocence and that he would not have been convicted but for various unconstitutional actions by the state. The Court of Criminal Appeals recognized that the subsequent -application rule was enacted in response to the U.S. Supreme Court?s decision in Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 115 S.Ct. 851, 130 L.Ed.2d 808 (1995). Schlup created an actual innocence exception to the prohibition against subsequent federal habeas corpus petitions if the petitioner showed that a constitutional violation ?more likely than not? resulted in the conviction of an innocent person. The court considered whether this preponderance-of-the-evidence-of-innocence standard should apply to subsequent state habeas applications and decided that it would be sufficient for a state habeas applicant to make a prima facie showing of actual innocence to overcome the subsequent habeas application prohibition of Section 4 and allow the court to consider the merits of the constitutional claims in the application.
In this case, the court held that Brooks failed to make the prima facie showing of innocence required before the court could consider his constitutional claims. Therefore, the application was successive under Article 11.07, Section 4. See: Ex Parte Brooks, 219 S.W.3d 396 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Ex Parte Brooks
| Year | 2007 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 219 S.W.3d 396 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007) |
| Level | State Supreme Court |
| Injunction Status | N/A |