Miller, Rodney Earl
WR-87,582-01
| Tex. Crim. App. | Nov 15, 2017Background
- Rodney Earl Miller pleaded guilty to indecency with a child by contact and was sentenced to 15 years; the Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
- Miller filed an Article 11.07 habeas application claiming trial counsel was ineffective for failing to explain deferred-adjudication consequences, investigate, prepare a defense, interview witnesses, and follow up on a sexual-assault kit.
- Miller also asserted actual innocence based on subsequent Chapter 64 DNA testing that allegedly excludes him as the perpetrator.
- He alleged the State withheld material, exculpatory evidence prior to his plea (a Brady claim).
- The Court concluded Miller’s allegations, if true, might entitle him to relief and that additional factfinding was required; the trial court is the proper forum for those findings.
- The Court directed the trial court to obtain trial counsel’s response, determine indigence/appoint counsel if needed, hold a hearing if appropriate, make findings and conclusions on ineffective assistance, actual innocence from DNA testing, and any Brady issues, and to return supplemental findings within specified time limits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Miller: counsel failed to explain plea consequences, investigate, prepare a defense, interview witnesses, and follow up on evidence | State: (implicit) counsel’s performance sufficient; no relief warranted without factual development | Court: Allegations sufficient to warrant factfinding; trial court to order counsel’s response and make findings under Strickland |
| Actual innocence (DNA) | Miller: Chapter 64 testing excludes him as the perpetrator, showing actual innocence | State: (implicit) contestable; factual record needed | Court: Requires trial-court factfinding whether DNA testing shows actual innocence |
| Brady — withheld evidence | Miller: State withheld material/exculpatory evidence before his plea | State: (implicit) denial or contest; requires factual inquiry | Court: Allegations could support relief; trial court must make findings on whether material/exculpatory evidence was withheld |
| Procedural remedy / next steps | Miller: seeks habeas relief and findings | State: (implicit) oppose premature relief absent findings | Court: Remanded to trial court for response/hearing, appointment of counsel if indigent, findings of fact/conclusions of law; case held in abeyance with deadlines |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes ineffective-assistance-of-counsel two-prong test)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (prosecutor must disclose material, exculpatory evidence)
- Ex parte Patterson, 993 S.W.2d 114 (Tex. Crim. App.) (standards for assessing habeas claims of counsel ineffectiveness)
- Ex parte Tuley, 109 S.W.3d 388 (Tex. Crim. App.) (habeas review principles)
- Ex parte Young, 418 S.W.2d 824 (Tex. Crim. App.) (procedure for transmitting applications under Article 11.07)
- Ex parte Rodriguez, 334 S.W.2d 294 (Tex. Crim. App.) (trial court is proper forum for factfinding on habeas issues)