Agbeze, Ex Parte James, PD-1597-15

Background

James Agbeze was indicted and convicted for theft by a government contractor for fraudulent Medicaid reimbursement claims; jury assessed community supervision (7 years), a $10,000 fine, 90 days jail as a condition, and $18,169.45 restitution.
During the underlying investigation, an investigator (Nnadi) allegedly solicited a bribe from Agbeze; Agbeze refused and was later prosecuted.
The investigator later was indicted and pleaded guilty to bribery, suggesting official corruption that was not disclosed at Agbeze’s trial.
Agbeze appealed conviction and sought post-conviction relief under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.072 claiming actual innocence and a Brady violation for nondisclosure of the investigator’s corruption; habeas court denied relief after reviewing affidavits and evidence.
Agbeze argues the habeas court abused its discretion because he proved by a preponderance that undisclosed investigator corruption undermines the conviction and trial evidence; he seeks discretionary review.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Agbeze)	Defendant's Argument (State/Habeas Court)	Held
Whether habeas court abused its discretion in denying 11.072 relief	Habeas evidence shows investigator corruption was material Brady evidence and supports actual innocence → warrants new trial	Habeas court found state evidence and credibility determinations did not require relief; credited affidavits and found insufficient proof	Petitioner contends habeas court abused discretion; petition requests review (trial court denial stands pending CCA decision)
Whether failure to disclose investigator’s corruption violated Brady	Nondisclosure of investigator’s bribery and corruption was material and would have altered trial outcome	State did not disclose because reports lacked or minimized Nnadi’s role; habeas court found evidence insufficient to establish a Brady violation	Agbeze argues Brady violation proven; habeas court disagreed and denied relief
Whether evidence was legally sufficient to support aggregated-theft conviction	Agbeze argues insufficient proof that overcharges formed a single scheme or that he acted knowingly/intentionally	State maintained sufficiency; appellate courts previously affirmed conviction	Court of Appeals affirmed conviction; Agbeze seeks CCA review of sufficiency question
Whether affidavits and investigatory records establish Nnadi’s active role and materiality	Agbeze points to affidavits (e.g., Jesse Mack) and FBI awareness of corruption to show active involvement and material suppression	Habeas court credited some affidavit testimony despite inconsistencies and concluded it did not justify relief	Habeas court denied relief; Agbeze argues credibility and weight should have produced different outcome

Key Cases Cited

Ex parte Cruzata, 220 S.W.3d 518 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (habeas corpus as extraordinary remedy)
Ex parte Scott, 190 S.W.3d 672 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (burden to prove habeas claims by preponderance)
Kniatt v. State, 206 S.W.3d 657 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (standard of review and deference to trial court findings in habeas proceedings)
Ex parte Peterson, 117 S.W.3d 804 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (deference to trial court on historical facts; credibility/demeanor-based findings)
Ex parte Lewis, 219 S.W.3d 335 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (noting limits on overruling prior precedent in habeas contexts)