Miller, Emzy Lorenzo, WR-53,571-09

Miller files a Suggestion for Reconsideration of the Court of Criminal Appeals’ dismissal of his subsequent habeas corpus application under Art. 11.07.
The dismissal occurred on October 8, 2014, and was issued without a written order according to Miller.
Rule 79.2(d) TRAP authorizes the Court to reconsider on its own motion, but the Court has historically entertained reconsideration motions in similar post-conviction contexts.
Miller asserts that the subsequent-writ framework under Art. 11.07 §4 creates a liberty interest protected by due process, and that Schlup-type actual innocence claims were improperly handled.
The court’s Findings of Fact by Judge Sage allegedly lacked Conclusions of Law and did not properly address Section 4’s standards, leading Miller to claim an unreasonable application of law and an inadequate facts record.
Miller relies on newly discovered evidence (Cleveland plea-hearing transcripts and post-judgment records) to argue both a void judgment and actual innocence, requiring federal-law-style scrutiny under Schlup and Sawyer standards.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Court should reconsider dismissal under Art. 11.07 §4 on its own motion.	Miller contends §4 creates a liberty interest and warrants review.	Defense would maintain proper application of state law and procedural rules.	Court should reconsider to ensure proper Section 4 analysis.
Whether Judge Sage's Findings were adequate to apply Section 4(a)(1)-(2).	Findings lacked law-conclusions and failed to address new-claims requirements.	Sage's findings purportedly satisfied review requirements.	Findings were inadequate; improper basis to dismiss under Section 4.
Whether Miller made a prima facie showing of new, fact-specific grounds warranting merits review under Section 4.	New evidence shows actual innocence and void judgment; evidence is reliable.	Claims may not satisfy the prima facie factual threshold under §4.	Prima facie showing warranted further review.
Whether the review under Schlup and related federal standards was properly applied to Miller's claims.	Cleveland evidence and potential constitutional violations require Schlup-based consideration.	State court analysis should remain within state procedural framework without federal override.	Federal standards apply; proper analysis required on remand.

Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (U.S. Supreme Court 1995) (actual innocence gateway for equitable review)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (U.S. Supreme Court 2000) (limitations on federal habeas relief for state court adjudications)
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (U.S. Supreme Court 2003) (state-court fact-finding and evidence evaluation; credibility concerns)
Sawyer v. Whitley, 505 U.S. 333 (U.S. Supreme Court 1992) (new reliable evidence and fundamental miscarriage of justice standard)
Taylor v. Maddox, 366 F.3d 992 (9th Cir. 2004) (unreasonable factual determinations; evidentiary hearing considerations)
Fairman v. Anderson, 188 F.3d 635 (5th Cir. 1999) (fundamental miscarriage of justice and innocence assertions)
Ex parte Graham, 853 S.W.2d 565 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (reconsideration practice after dismissal of habeas petition)
Ex parte Lemke, 13 S.W.3d 791 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (court precedent on motions for reconsideration)
Wilson v. Beard, 426 F.3d 653 (3d Cir. 2005) (state-court hearing requests and §2254(e)(2) development of the record)