Ex Parte James Agbeze, 479 S.W.3d 529

James Agbeze was convicted in 2013 of theft by a government contractor and given community supervision and a fine.
An investigator in Agbeze’s case, Ihenacho Nnadi, solicited a bribe from Agbeze in 2007; Agbeze refused; Nnadi later pleaded guilty to federal bribery charges.
Agbeze filed a post-conviction habeas application under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.072 claiming actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence and a Brady violation for the State’s failure to disclose Nnadi’s corruption.
The habeas court found Nnadi sought a bribe in 2007, that Nnadi did not testify or prepare analysis at trial, and that Agbeze presented no false evidence at trial; it denied relief and entered written findings.
The court of appeals reviewed for abuse of discretion, treating Agbeze’s claims as potentially Herrera-type (substantive actual innocence) and Schlup-type (procedural actual innocence tied to constitutional error/Brady).
The court affirmed: Nnadi’s corruption was not newly discovered (defense knew of it at trial), did not unquestionably establish innocence, and Brady did not apply to evidence known or available to the defense.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Nnadi’s corruption is newly discovered evidence that proves actual innocence (Herrera-type)	Agbeze: Nnadi’s bribery/ corruption is newly discovered and establishes innocence	State: Nnadi’s misconduct did not affect trial evidence and was known/available to defense	Court: Not newly discovered; does not unquestionably establish innocence — claim fails
Whether the State committed a Brady violation by not disclosing Nnadi’s corruption (Schlup-type)	Agbeze: Suppression of Nnadi’s corruption deprived him of favorable/exculpatory evidence	State: Defense knew or had access to the bribery facts; Brady does not apply to known/available evidence; also first habeas application so Schlup-type inappropriate	Court: No Brady violation; evidence was known/available; Schlup-type relief improper here

Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (U.S. 1993) (distinguishes bare claims of innocence from procedural innocence tied to constitutional error)
Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (U.S. 1995) (procedural actual-innocence gateway when constitutional claims are otherwise barred)
Ex parte Elizondo, 947 S.W.2d 202 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (Herrera-type actual innocence cognizable in habeas)
Ex parte Franklin, 72 S.W.3d 671 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (requiring newly discovered evidence that affirmatively establishes innocence)
Ex parte Brown, 205 S.W.3d 538 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (analysis of newly discovered evidence vs. old inculpatory evidence)
Ex parte Villegas, 415 S.W.3d 885 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (Schlup-type claims not proper in initial habeas when constitutional claims are not procedurally barred)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (State must disclose exculpatory material)
Hayes v. State, 85 S.W.3d 809 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (Brady does not apply to evidence known or available to defense)
Ex parte Thompson, 153 S.W.3d 416 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (court must weigh new evidence against old to determine whether it would convince jurors of innocence)
Rubalcado v. State, 424 S.W.3d 560 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (knowledge of an agent’s misconduct is not automatically imputed when the agent worked for a different sovereign)