Alvarado, Jose Zamarripa
WR-73,133-04
Tex. App.Jul 13, 2015Background
- Petitioner José Alvarado Zamarripa, proceeding pro se, sought writs of habeas corpus and certiorari related to his Webb County, Texas conviction for indecency with a child by contact.
- Conviction followed a bench trial; petitioner was sentenced to 11 years’ confinement with credit for time served.
- Petitioner alleges unlawful arrest and 16 months’ custody before indictment, perjury by an investigator, and numerous due-process and evidentiary violations.
- Petitioner pursued multiple state habeas applications and direct/indirect appeals; the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied relief, and the federal district court granted summary judgment against him.
- The federal district court held his claims procedurally barred or meritless under established federal law, and denied a certificate of appealability.
- Petitioner’s primary theories include ineffective assistance of counsel, insufficient evidence, and actual innocence, all of which were rejected on the merits or procedural grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the petition is procedurally barred or exhausted | Alvarado | State | Yes; claims barred or procedurally defaulted. |
| Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to sustain the conviction | Alvarado | State | No federal relief; sufficiency claims not cognizable on habeas. |
| Whether trial/appellate counsel were ineffective | Alvarado | State | No reversible error; record inadequate to show deficient performance. |
| Whether actual innocence can excuse procedural default | Alvarado | State | Not established; no new reliable evidence of innocence. |
| Whether petitioner is entitled to relief on due process grounds given alleged arrest and detention conditions | Alvarado | State | Denied; relief denied under Stone v. Powell and related standards. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (U.S. 1976) (unrehabilitated exclusion of evidence is governed by procedural rules in habeas corpus)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (sufficiency standard for evidence in criminal trials)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (test for ineffective assistance of counsel and prejudice)
- Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (U.S. 2000) (standards for appellate counsel effectiveness)
- Ex parte Chandler, 182 S.W.3d 350 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (Strickland framework applied in Texas post-conviction)
- Ex parte Countryman, 226 S.W.3d 435 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (Article 32.01/180-day custody considerations; indictment timing)
- Ex parte Brooks, 219 S.W.3d 396 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (standards for successive habeas applications)
- Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (U.S. 1993) (actual innocence as gateway but not itself a freestanding claim)