State v. Holloway
2012 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 475
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2012Background
- The appellee was convicted of manslaughter with a deadly-weapon finding and sentenced to 20 years in prison.
- Witnesses largely described the appellee wielding a knife; the murder weapon was a knife found in his truck.
- A trial video and testimony conflicted on whether the appellee possessed a knife during the fight.
- Post-conviction, Holloway moved for DNA testing of presumptive blood on the knife; testing was granted.
- DNA results showed the biological material on the knife did not belong to the victim, leading to a request for a new trial.
- The Sixth Court of Appeals reversed parts of the lower court proceedings, holding no Chapter 64 jurisdiction and insufficient evidence for a favorable Article 64.04 finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the convicting court had jurisdiction to order a new trial under Chapter 64 | Holloway argues Chapter 64 confers jurisdiction to grant a new trial. | State contends there is no Chapter 64 basis to grant a new trial; only testing relief is contemplated. | Convicting court lacked jurisdiction to order a new trial under Chapter 64. |
| Whether Article 64.04 findings can justify relief or require habeas corpus remains exclusive | Holloway contends favorable Article 64.04 findings can lead to post-conviction relief. | State maintains Article 64.04 provides no standalone remedy; habeas corpus is exclusive for final felonies. | Relief via Chapter 64 cannot bypass habeas corpus; remedy remains exclusive under Article 11.07/11.071. |
| Whether the court of appeals should assess the sufficiency of the Article 64.04 finding | Holloway seeks review of the sufficiency of the finding supporting a new trial. | State argues the finding is reviewable only in habeas corpus contexts and not as a standalone issue. | Sufficiency review was advisory; proper resolution awaits post-conviction habeas corpus relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Patrick, 86 S.W.3d 592 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002) (limitation of implicit authority; Chapter 64 purposes)
- Wolfe v. State, 120 S.W.3d 368 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003) (Chapter 64 testing authority; limits of authority to order testing)
- Ex parte Ybarra, 629 S.W.2d 943 (Tex.Crim.App. 1982) (trial court cannot grant new trial in habeas corpus context)
- Ex parte Elizondo, 947 S.W.2d 202 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996) (actual-innocence considerations in habeas corpus context)
- Ex parte Tuley, 109 S.W.3d 388 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002) (Chapter 64 scope and purpose; limited testing remedy)
- State v. Moore, 225 S.W.3d 556 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007) (timeliness and jurisdiction in new-trial contexts)
- Ex parte Evans, 964 S.W.2d 643 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998) (general principles on jurisdiction and habeas corpus)