Ex parte Reed
2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 4169
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- Reed was convicted of theft of welfare benefits >$1,500 but <$20,000 after a jury trial and a judgment entered April 20, 2009; on direct appeal the conviction and sufficiency challenges were rejected.
- Reed’s welfare benefits were over-issued by about $1,806.13 based on unreported employment from 2005–2007.
- During habeas proceedings, Reed challenged the no-evidence of value and asserted actual innocence based on lack of unlawful appropriation.
- The habeas court found Reed’s claims non-cognizable and denied relief, citing that issues were addressed on direct appeal.
- This Court previously affirmed the sufficiency of the evidence on direct appeal, including Rodgers’ testimony and calculations, and declined to reconsider those sufficiency questions on habeas review.
- The ultimate holding affirmed the habeas court’s denial of post-conviction relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Reed’s no-evidence claims are cognizable on habeas corpus | Reed - no-evidence challenge is cognizable | State - no-evidence claims not cognizable if already rejected on direct appeal | No, not cognizable as to merits under controlling precedents |
| Whether the no-evidence claim would yield a different result upon merits review | Reed - merits review could yield relief | State - no-evidence claim cannot disturb the judgment | No, merits review would not change the outcome under the record |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Moffett, 542 S.W.2d 184 (Tex.Crim.App.1976) (no-evidence claims cognizable on habeas corpus; probation-related relief)
- Ex parte Brown, 757 S.W.2d 367 (Tex.Crim.App.1988) (no-evidence cognizable; sufficiency claims not cognizable on habeas review)
- Ex parte Cantrell, 112 S.W.3d 753 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2003) (distinguishes no-evidence vs insufficiency; supports cognizability of no-evidence when raised as such)
- Nix v. State, 65 S.W.3d 664 (Tex.Crim.App.2001) (no-evidence judgments are void and subject to collateral attack; insufficiency not void)
- Ex parte Christian, 760 S.W.2d 659 (Tex.Crim.App.1988) (no-evidence cognizable; insufficiency not cognizable on habeas review)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (Supreme Court 1979) (no-evidence standard defined; sufficiency standard governs on direct appeal not habeas)
- Laflore v. State, 595 S.W.2d 862 (Tex.Crim.App.1980) (no-evidence cognizable; shift from Thompson due process concerns)