Wade, Alex Melvin
WR-65,555-20
Tex.Dec 14, 2015Background
- Relator Alex Melvin Wade, Jr., pro se, filed a state habeas application in Harris County (original Feb 24, 2014; amended Mar 26, 2015) claiming actual innocence, ineffective assistance, Brady violations, use of perjured testimony, and insufficiency of evidence for attempted theft.
- The Harris County DA acknowledged receipt but the district court did not hold an evidentiary hearing on Wade’s designated issues; Wade seeks mandamus relief from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals compelling an evidentiary hearing and findings.
- Wade contends the indictment rested on an invalid complaint (discrepancy as to the named complainant) and that the State’s chief witness (Eitan Price / Capital One witness Michael Coulter references) gave false or impeachable testimony that the State failed to disclose.
- Wade argues his trial counsel failed to move to dismiss or obtain a directed verdict when the complainant issue and evidentiary flaws were apparent (a Strickland claim).
- Wade invokes precedents recognizing freestanding actual-innocence claims and claims that Brady/impeachment material can undermine confidence in a verdict; he contends the lower court’s record and proposed findings omit key materials (motion/designation and proposed order) and thus the habeas record is incomplete before the CCA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wade) | Defendant's Argument (State/Harris County DA) | Held / Requested Relief |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wade’s habeas application was timely / 180‑day processing question | Wade notes State acknowledged receipt but argues the record forwarded to the CCA is incomplete and an evidentiary hearing is required despite timing contentions | State asserts it received the writs (Feb 24, 2014; Mar 26, 2014) and 180 days have elapsed | Wade asks CCA to compel the district court to answer designated issues and hold an evidentiary hearing; CCA order requested (mandamus) |
| Freestanding actual‑innocence claim — entitlement to evidentiary hearing | Wade contends newly discovered / impeachment evidence (invalid complaint, witness recantation/impeachment) undermines confidence in verdict and warrants an evidentiary hearing | State and lower court have not granted the evidentiary hearing; State characterized some claims as procedurally inadequate or untimely | Wade requests mandamus to force evidentiary hearing under Ex parte Elizondo and related precedent |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (Strickland) — failure to move to dismiss or seek directed verdict | Wade argues counsel’s failure to challenge the invalid complaint / complainant identity and to move for dismissal/directed verdict was deficient and prejudicial | State implicitly disputes the sufficiency or prejudice of counsel’s omissions and/or procedural posture | Wade seeks review on merits and an evidentiary forum to develop record on Strickland claim |
| Brady / suppression of impeachment evidence and use of perjured testimony | Wade alleges the State suppressed material impeachment (deposit slips, contracts, bank records, witness impeachment) and allowed/permitted perjured testimony that would have undermined the verdict | State’s filings acknowledge receipt of habeas pleadings; the DA’s proposed findings reportedly omit some motions/evidence from the forwarded record | Wade asks CCA to order district court to produce complete habeas record, hold hearing, and make findings of fact/conclusions of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Elizondo, 947 S.W.2d 202 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (recognizes freestanding actual‑innocence claims in postconviction habeas and discusses standards for relief)
- Ex parte Richardson, 70 S.W.3d 865 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (applicant bears burden by preponderance in postconviction habeas to prove facts entitling relief; discusses Brady materiality inquiry)
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (U.S. 1995) (distinguishes gateway actual‑innocence claims that permit review of otherwise barred constitutional claims)
- Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (U.S. 1993) (discusses constitutional dimensions of actual‑innocence claims and limits of federal habeas in naked innocence claims)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (prosecutor’s duty to disclose favorable/impeachment evidence)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (U.S. 1995) (materiality standard for suppressed evidence that could undermine confidence in the verdict)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)