Harris, Billy Joe
WR-80,329-02
| Tex. App. | Jan 29, 2015Background
- Applicant Billy Joe Harris (incarcerated, Wynne Unit) filed a pro se subsequent state habeas application (Art. 11.07) and an accompanying Motion for Leave to Exceed Prescribed Page Limits seeking an extra 15 pages for Grounds Four and Six. The filing was re-submitted to the 24th District Clerk on January 15, 2015.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals (COA) previously dismissed Harris's earlier application (WR-80,329-02) on 12/17/2014 for noncompliance: a non‑computer‑generated memorandum exceeded the 50‑page limit without trial‑court leave.
- Harris argues he corrected the noncompliance, preserved federal habeas issues (28 U.S.C. §2254), and seeks either trial‑court leave or COA consideration under Rule 72 extraordinary‑matter procedures to attach the additional pages.
- Substantive claims include (1) Brady nondisclosure of FBI investigative/profiling reports that defense experts later used in a subsequent proceeding, (2) alleged manufactured conflict and abuse of process by prosecutors to block presentation of certain psychiatric evidence, and (3) that exclusion of defense expert testimony on Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) and subsequent diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia deprived Harris of mitigation and a fair evaluation of insanity defenses.
- Harris invokes Texas Art. 11.073 (scientific evidence post‑trial), Ake (right to expert assistance), Penry/Eddings standards on mitigating evidence, and requests an evidentiary hearing and relief on the merits if the additional pages are allowed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to exceed page limit / Rule 72 extraordinary matter | Harris: trial court failed to rule on prior July 4, 2014 motion; extra 15 pages are necessary and within 15,000‑word max; request should be granted and pages attached for COA review | State/Clerk: earlier dismissal for exceeding page limits without leave; procedural default of prior submission | Status: applicant requests relief; record shows COA dismissed prior writ for noncompliance; no final ruling on this subsequent motion in this file excerpt |
| Brady nondisclosure of FBI reports | Harris: prosecutors (Bell) failed to disclose two FBI reports (profiling & ViCAP) in Jackson County trial despite court order and representations; non‑disclosure violated due process and prejudiced presentation of psychiatric defense | State: (implied) either no materially exculpatory evidence existed at the time or disclosure obligations were satisfied later; prosecutors previously represented Brady compliance | Status: alleged Brady violation asserted; no resolved court decision in this pleading |
| Alleged manufactured conflict / abuse of process to preclude challenge under Art. 11.073 | Harris: prosecution manufactured a conflict by withholding FBI reports so they could be used later to alter defense diagnosis, thereby preventing timely Art. 11.073 claims and blocking expert testimony on DID; seeks inquiry and relief | State: (implied) factual dispute; denies misconduct or manufactured conflict; argues procedural rules control | Status: asserted as basis for relief and for Art. 11.073 review; unresolved in this filing |
| Mitigating evidence / exclusion of expert testimony (insanity/mental‑health) | Harris: exclusion of DID experts and later diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia deprived jury of mitigating evidence and effective psychiatric assistance (Ake); Penry/Eddings standards require consideration of this evidence | State: (implied) trial court excluded defense experts under Daubert/Rule 702 gatekeeping as unreliable; reliability supports exclusion | Status: applicant argues prejudice and requests relief; no final appellate disposition included here |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose materially exculpatory evidence)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (Brady extended to entire prosecutorial team)
- Woodford v. Garceau, 538 U.S. 202 (2003) (characterization of habeas pleading requirements)
- In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225 (Tex. App. Amarillo 2001) (treatment of non‑computer generated filings and procedural issues)
- Ex parte Mitchell, 977 S.W.2d 575 (Tex. Crim. App.) (Brady suppression and due process analysis)
- Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985) (right to psychiatric assistance when sanity is a significant factor)
- Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 (1982) (sentencer must consider all relevant mitigating evidence)
- Bigby v. Dretke, 402 F.3d 551 (5th Cir. 2005) (definition and scope of relevant mitigating evidence)