Stanton, Luke, WR-79,389-10

Background

Applicant Luke A. Stanton (pro se) challenges convictions in Denton County (trial causes F-2011-1911-C; F-2011-1912-C; F-2011-1913-C) and filed an Art. 11.07 habeas application raising Brady, evidence-destruction, use of perjured testimony, and ineffective-assistance claims.
Central factual complaints: prosecution and investigators withheld Denton PD investigative reports, failed to produce or destroyed cellphone video clips and text messages, and allegedly altered or misdated phone/video evidence.
Applicant asserts Investigator Crow submitted a false Grand Jury referral and testified falsely at trial about having observed 2009 CAC forensic interviews.
Applicant contends the withheld/destroyed materials (video clips, texts, detective reports) were material impeachment/exculpatory evidence that would have undermined complainants’ credibility.
He further alleges trial and appellate counsel failed to investigate, pursue a new trial, or present the withheld evidence, depriving him of effective assistance.
The trial court adopted the State’s proposed findings and recommended denial of relief; Stanton filed formal objections and asks the Court of Criminal Appeals to reject those findings, hold an evidentiary hearing, and grant relief.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held (trial court)
Brady/non-disclosure of Denton PD reports, videos, texts	Withheld reports, video clips, and texts were favorable/impeaching and material to credibility; nondisclosure violated Brady	State contends it provided all known exculpatory evidence (affidavit of ADA Dickens); any withheld items were not material to outcome	Trial court found prosecution turned over all known evidence or that withheld items were not material and recommended denial of relief
Destruction/alteration of cellphone evidence	Phone/video files were altered or misdated and some content was destroyed; failure to preserve was prejudicial and in bad faith	State argues either no bad faith or that content (not dates) was dispositive; no prejudice shown	Trial court found no bad-faith destruction and no prejudice from any loss or alteration
Use of allegedly perjured testimony (Investigator Crow)	Crow falsely reported attending/observing 2009 CAC interviews and the State knowingly used that false testimony to secure convictions (Napue claim)	State treated Crow’s testimony as credible and denies knowing use of perjured testimony	Trial court found no basis that Crow intentionally misled court/jury or that the State knowingly used perjured testimony
Ineffective assistance of trial counsel	Trial counsel failed to obtain/introduce withheld evidence, failed to move for new trial based on unavailable evidence, and thus performance was objectively deficient and prejudicial (Strickland)	State argues counsel received available materials and performed adequately	Trial court concluded counsel was effective or that any deficiencies did not prejudice the defense

Key Cases Cited

Ex parte Adams, 768 S.W.2d 281 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (Art. 11.07 relief available for jurisdictional defects and fundamental constitutional violations)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose materially favorable evidence to the accused)
Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 668 (2004) (prosecutor’s duty to disclose cannot be shifted entirely to defense investigation)
Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (materiality assessed in context of entire record; withheld evidence that could impeach witnesses can be material)
California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (1984) (duty to preserve evidence limited to material evidence expected to play significant role)
Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988) (bad-faith destruction of potentially useful evidence can violate due process)
United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976) (materiality standard for nondisclosed evidence contextualized)
Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959) (conviction invalid if government knowingly uses false testimony)
Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 (1986) (prosecutorial misconduct assessed by whether remarks infected trial with unfairness)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Ex parte Moore, 395 S.W.3d 152 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (standards for assessing counsel performance on habeas review)