Ex Parte Pena
2016 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 53
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2016Background
- Applicant Martin Pena pleaded guilty to delivery of a controlled substance in Harris County and was sentenced to 15 years; he did not appeal.
- Applicant claimed his plea was involuntary and that the State violated Brady by failing to disclose exculpatory evidence.
- After the habeas application was filed and set for submission in this Court, the State attached a Houston PD incident report (Appendix A) to its brief filed here, which had not been filed in the trial court.
- Applicant moved to strike the State’s brief or, alternatively, to strike Appendix A and references to it as improperly filed and hearsay.
- The Court declined to strike the State’s brief but conditionally granted the motion to strike Appendix A and set procedures for when and how evidence not filed in the trial court may be considered by this Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence filed directly in this Court (Appendix A) may be considered after an Article 11.07 application is filed and set | Appendix A is not part of the habeas record and is inadmissible; this Court should strike it | Appendix A assists the Court in assessing voluntariness and Brady materiality; Rules are silent on supplementation | The Court conditionally struck Appendix A unless the State follows prescribed procedures to have it considered |
| What procedures govern filing evidence after an application is filed and set for submission | N/A (Applicant sought exclusion) | N/A (State sought consideration) | The Court prescribed two options: (1) file evidence here with a motion showing "compelling and extraordinary circumstances" and explaining evidentiary value; or (2) move to supplement in the trial court describing the evidence and why it could not have been filed earlier |
| Standard for considering evidence filed directly in this Court | N/A | N/A | Evidence filed directly will be considered only in truly exceptional, compelling circumstances; ordinarily evidence should be filed in the trial court so it can develop the record |
| Procedure if application is pending here but not yet filed and set | N/A | N/A | A party may move to stay proceedings here so it can file evidence in the trial court; the Court will set a time frame if motion granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose exculpatory evidence)
- Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970) (discusses voluntariness of guilty pleas)
- Ex parte Whisenant, 443 S.W.3d 930 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (ordinarily decline to consider evidence filed directly in this Court; trial court should develop record)
- Ex parte Simpson, 136 S.W.3d 660 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (same principle: this Court is not original factfinder; filing original evidentiary materials here is generally counterproductive)