Harleston, Robert Alan Jr
2014 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 760
Tex. Crim. App.2014Background
- Harleston convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a child in 2007 and sentenced to 25 years; direct appeal affirmed; discretionary review denied in 2011; shortly after, KD provided a nine-page handwritten recantation claiming no abuse occurred.
- Habeas corpus petition alleged actual innocence based on KD’s recantation; the habeas court held a live evidentiary hearing and found recantations credible, recommending relief.
- On independent review, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals rejected the habeas court’s credibility findings and held the applicant failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable juror would have convicted him in light of the new evidence.
- The court explained the Herrera framework for freestanding actual-innocence claims and the heightened standard of review, and applied Elizondo/Tuley/Franklin lineage to assess newly discovered evidence.
- Ultimately, the court concluded that the newly discovered recantations, given credibility concerns and internal inconsistencies, did not satisfy the clear-and-convincing standard to overturn the conviction; relief denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the recantation constitutes actual innocence under Herrera framework | Harleston: recantation proves innocence by clear and convincing evidence | State: recantations are unreliable and insufficient to undermine the verdict | No; recantations fail to prove innocence by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether the habeas court's credibility determinations were supported by the record | Harleston: habeas court credibility findings were credible | State: findings not supported; record shows inconsistencies | No; independent review undermines habeas credibility findings |
| Standard of review for freestanding actual-innocence claims | Harleston: adopts Herrera high standard to prove innocence | State: requires highly persuasive showing; new evidence must be credible | Held: extraordinarily high standard; must show credible new evidence that would compel unconditional innocence |
| Whether newly discovered evidence here unquestionably establishes innocence | KD recantation is newly discovered and credible | Credibility and contradictions negate reliability | No; new evidence not credible enough to establish actual innocence by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether relief should be granted based on the newly discovered evidence | Relief warranted due to actual innocence | Relief not warranted given lack of credible, dispositive proof | Denied; relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Elizondo, 947 S.W.2d 202 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (actual innocence claim; due-process safeguard in wrongful incarceration situations)
- Ex parte Tuley, 109 S.W.3d 388 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (newly discovered evidence calculus; innocence considerations)
- Ex parte Franklin, 72 S.W.3d 671 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (test for applying Herrera-type claims; weighing new evidence against prior record)
- Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993) (exceedingly persuasive case required for actual-innocence claims; standard of proof)
- Ex parte Brown, 205 S.W.3d 538 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (formal framework for evaluating actual-innocence claims)