Jimenez, Ex Parte Rosa Estela Olvera, 364 S.W.3d 866

21-month-old B.G. choked on a wad of paper towels while Jimenez babysat and died from brain injury due to oxygen deprivation.
Trial framed the case as accident (defense) versus intentional homicide (State); multiple medical experts disputed over whether B.G. could have self-inflicted the choking.
Jimenez was convicted of felony murder and injury to a child; sentences were lengthy and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
In habeas, three defenses experts supported accidental choking; the habeas court found some factual points but ultimately denied relief.
Ake claim argued indigent access to additional experts; Texas law requires a threshold written showing of need and pretrial motions.
Claim of ineffective assistance centered on counsel’s handling of expert retention, cross-examination strategy, and lack of additional experts; the court denied relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ake funding requirement satisfied	Jimenez asserts need for more experts.	Wisser denied beyond-standard funding; informal requests invalid.	No Ake violation; must have written pretrial showing for funding.
Actual innocence based on new experts	Jimenez's new experts show likely accidental choking.	State rebutted; evidence not new or compelling enough.	Applicant failed to prove actual innocence by clear and convincing evidence.
Ineffective assistance for failure to hire additional experts	Counsel should have hired multidisciplinary experts.	No constitutional right to an entire expert team; Kanfer adequate.	No deficient performance; Strickland standard not met.
Cross-examination strategy and request for mistrial/continuance	Kanfer’s profanity and prosecutor’s framing harmed defense.	Trial strategy reasonable; no basis for mistrial/continuance.	No reversible error; strategy fell within reasonable professional judgment.

Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985) (indigent right to expert assistance where value significant to trial)
Williams v. State, 958 S.W.2d 186 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (contemporaneous pretrial showing and ex parte proceedings for expenses)
Busby v. State, 990 S.W.2d 263 (Tex. Crim. App.) (whether appointment of an expert levels the playing field)
Rey v. State, 897 S.W.2d 333 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (balancing nature and materiality of expert assistance)
Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320 (1985) (necessity to show potential for erroneous deprivation in due process)