Richardson, Billy Ray AKA Billy Richardson
WR-74,799-07
| Tex. App. | Aug 7, 2015Background
- Applicant filed a habeas application claiming actual innocence based on constitutional errors at trial (prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel) and sought to use Schlup as a gateway to review otherwise barred claims.
- The State moved to dismiss the application as a subsequent writ, arguing no exception under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.07 § 4 applied.
- Before applicant could reply, the trial court signed an order finding no controverted, unresolved factual issues and recommended dismissal of the writ as successive.
- Applicant’s central factual claim is that a police-taken statement attributed admissions of repeated consensual sex and prior sexual history to him, but those allegations were false, fabricated under promise/manipulation by an officer, and known by the prosecutor to be false.
- Applicant alleges the prosecutor concealed material facts (via a Rule 412 motion in limine and omission of exculpatory facts) so the false statement could be admitted and used as a confession to prove penetration/burden elements.
- Applicant contends that, without the improperly admitted false statement, no rational juror would have convicted him beyond a reasonable doubt, and thus his Schlup-type actual-innocence claim entitles him to have merits claims heard despite procedural default.
Issues
| Issue | Applicant's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether applicant’s Schlup-type actual-innocence claim is a gateway to review otherwise-barred claims | Applicant: False police statement was knowingly introduced by prosecution; prosecutor concealed material facts; these constitutional errors probably resulted in conviction, satisfying Schlup gateway | State: No applicable exception under § 4; unaware of any constitutional provision that bars a prosecutor from introducing a (purportedly) false statement as evidence of guilt | Trial court recommended dismissal as a subsequent writ; applicant objects and urges the higher court to find his Schlup claim colorable and permit review of merits claims |
| Whether the prosecutor had a duty to correct or not introduce the allegedly false statement | Applicant: Prosecutor knew statement was false or at least hid facts that would show falsity; duty to correct false evidence; introduction violated due process and fair-trial rights | State: Denies any controlling constitutional bar to introducing a defendant’s statement even if false | Applicant argues facts show a Brady/Due Process-type violation; trial court nevertheless treated the application as successive and did not resolve factual disputes in an evidentiary hearing |
| Admissibility of the statement given alleged coercion/promise/manipulation by police | Applicant: Officer promised help and coached fabricated admissions; statement therefore involuntary and inadmissible | State: Implicitly treated statement as admissible evidence at trial and in postconviction process | Applicant asserts voluntariness/involuntariness was not litigated at a hearing outside the jury and remains an unresolved factual issue |
| Whether procedural bar under Texas postconviction statute should be excused | Applicant: Actual-innocence exception under Schlup and related federal authorities excuses the § 4 restrictions | State: Maintains § 4 bars subsequent writ and requests dismissal | Trial court recommended dismissal; applicant contends that recommendation is unsupported by the record and factual disputes require hearing rather than dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995) (actual-innocence gateway: petitioner must show constitutional errors probably resulted in conviction)
- Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (1935) (prosecutorial misconduct can deny defendant a fair trial)
- Daggan v. State, 778 S.W.2d 469 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (false evidence corrupts the truth-seeking function and can mislead the factfinder)
- Ward v. State, 158 S.W.2d 516 (Tex. Crim. App. 1942) (confessions must be voluntary; statements given under promise or coercion are inadmissible)
- Gomez v. Jaimet, 350 F.3d 673 (7th Cir. 2003) (discussing Schlup gateway and access to federal review)
- Griffin v. Johnson, 350 F.3d 960 (9th Cir. 2003) (same)