Chavez, Ex Parte Adrian
2012 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 696
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2012Background
- Adrian Chavez was convicted of aggravated robbery and sentenced to 55 years, after being charged with capital murder and acquitted of that count.
- Two roommates, Cameron and Lewis, testified Chavez was the shooter during the home invasion that killed Alex Parisi.
- A day after the jury retired to deliberate, Chavez admitted to his counsel that he participated in the offense as the getaway driver, not as the shooter.
- Post-trial, two other men admitted involvement; they pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery with weapons and prosecutors received statements supporting their claims.
- Chavez filed a prior habeas petition; this Court previously denied relief under the actual-innocence framework and did not address a due-process false-testimony claim.
- Chavez filed a subsequent habeas petition arguing a new legal basis (Chabot) recognizing unknowing use of false testimony as a due-process violation; the trial court’s findings were that false testimony occurred but no demonstrated materiality.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Chabot constitutes a new legal basis under Art. 11.07 §4(a)(1). | Chavez relies on Chabot to permit review of unknowing false testimony. | Chavez previously raised the issue; unavailability not satisfied because claim could have been framed earlier. | New basis recognized; review granted. |
| Whether unknowing use of false testimony violates due process under the materiality standard. | False testimony by Cameron and Lewis was false and material. | Jury’s murder acquittal and other evidence show no material impact on punishment. | No due-process violation found; relief denied. |
| What is the appropriate materiality standard for unknowing false testimony on habeas review. | Materiality requires a favorable standard (reasonable likelihood) under unknowing use. | Materiality analysis aligns with established cases; no relief given. | Materiality established at a level that still yields denial; no relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Chabot, 300 S.W.3d 768 (Tex.Crim.App.2009) (first explicit recognition of unknowing use of false testimony as due-process violation)
- Ex parte Ghahremani, 332 S.W.3d 470 (Tex.Crim.App.2011) (materiality depends on whether the false testimony affected the outcome)
- Ex parte Fierro, 934 S.W.2d 370 (Tex.Crim.App.1996) (harm standard and materiality framework for habeas claims)
- Estrada v. State, 313 S.W.3d 274 (Tex.Crim.App.2010) (fair probability standard in punishment-stage due-process claims)
- Ex parte Chavez, 213 S.W.3d 320 (Tex.Crim.App.2006) (prior analysis of actual-innocence and related due-process considerations)
- Ex parte Napper, 322 S.W.3d 202 (Tex.Crim.App.2010) (discusses standards for materiality across false-testimony claims)
- Sanders v. Sullivan, 863 F.2d 218 (2d Cir. 1988) (due-process reach of unknowing false testimony in habeas context)