McDonnel, Thomas Elton
WR-83,580-03
Tex. App.Oct 5, 2015Background
- Applicant Thomas Elton McDannel, pro se and incarcerated, filed a response and motion in Harris County District Court challenging a prior order designating issues for a paper habeas (art. 11.07) hearing.
- McDannel contends the order was signed by a judge who did not preside at trial and that a paper hearing based on affidavits is inadequate to resolve credibility disputes.
- He argues trial counsel, the prosecutor, court reporter, and the original trial judge will submit affidavits whose credibility must be tested by a judge with firsthand knowledge of the trial.
- McDannel seeks to develop factual allegations against the trial judge and the district attorney and requests a live evidentiary hearing with his personal attendance (bench warrant). He alternatively requests supplementation of the paper hearing.
- He cites federal and state authorities establishing that credibility disputes and disputed factual issues generally require an evidentiary hearing and that state-court findings are entitled to deference only after a full and fair hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a paper (affidavit-based) habeas hearing is adequate when credibility determinations are required | McDannel: Paper hearing is inadequate for credibility disputes; live hearing required | (Respondent not argued in this filing) Paper hearing and affidavits can resolve issues | Not decided here; applicant requests a live evidentiary hearing |
| Whether a judge who did not preside at trial may fairly resolve credibility of trial participants' affidavits | McDannel: A judge who did not preside is disqualified to assess credibility; only trial judge has firsthand basis | Implicit counter: a different judge may review affidavits and resolve issues on paper | Not decided here; applicant argues disqualification and requests live hearing |
| Whether applicant must be allowed to develop factual allegations against the judge and DA | McDannel: Due process/Supreme Court precedent requires development of factual record when allegations, if true, would entitle relief | Implicit counter: court procedure may limit discovery/development in summary paper proceedings | Not decided here; applicant seeks permission to develop facts and plenary processing |
| Whether state-court factual findings are entitled to a presumption of correctness absent a full and fair hearing | McDannel: State findings are not entitled to deference unless there was a full and fair evidentiary hearing | State may argue its findings are entitled to deference | Not decided here; applicant argues deference is not warranted without live hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293 (1963) (plenary evidentiary hearing required when allegations, if true, could entitle petitioner to relief)
- Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63 (1977) (habeas petitioner entitled to full opportunity to present relevant facts)
- Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286 (1969) (importance of careful consideration and plenary processing of habeas claims)
- Alston v. Garrison, 720 F.2d 812 (5th Cir. 1983) (counsel may not admit ineffectiveness in affidavits; credibility issues favor live testing)
- Perilla v. Johnson, 79 F.3d 441 (5th Cir. 1996) (limitations on paper hearings for credibility disputes where trial judge did not preside)
- May v. Collins, 955 F.2d 299 (5th Cir. 1992) (necessity of evaluating appropriateness of paper hearing on a case-by-case basis)
- Brown v. Johnson, 224 F.3d 461 (5th Cir. 2000) (requiring development of factual basis for claims where appropriate)
- Highwarden v. State, 846 S.W.2d 479 (Tex. App. 1993) (state court bound by Supreme Court precedent on habeas processing)