Wade, Alex Melvin, WR-65,555-20

Background

Alex Melvin Wade, Jr. was convicted by a Harris County jury (185th Dist. Ct.) of attempted theft over $200,000 based on presenting purported insurance drafts allegedly issued by Western World Insurance Group. Wade pleaded not guilty and later filed habeas/mandamus applications to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
Capital One's internal investigation (affidavit of Ken D. Cash) reports that items Wade presented in April–May 2007 were determined counterfeit or not ‘‘on us’’; branch and fraud reports identify irregularities (misspellings, inconsistent amounts, no remitting bank) and a Suspicious Activity Report was filed.
Wade contends his trial counsel (Lawrence Cerf) provided ineffective assistance: failed to investigate and subpoena Bank of America witnesses, FDIC limitations were misunderstood, failed to introduce/exploit exculpatory evidence, failed to move to dismiss or for directed verdict, failed to request appropriate jury instructions, and failed to perfect an appeal.
Wade asserts prosecutorial suppression of exculpatory evidence (Brady/Kyles/Ex parte Adams type claims) and newly discovered evidence that would have impeached the State’s chief witness (Michael Coulter, Capital One manager) and undermined the prosecution’s theory.
Procedural posture: pro se filings to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals objecting that the clerk’s supplemental record is incomplete (docket printout discrepancy) and requesting an evidentiary hearing and habeas relief (writ recommended/granted). Wade asks the court to consider actual innocence gateway arguments and Strickland claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Wade)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held / Disposition in the Record
1) Actual-innocence gateway / new evidence	Newly discovered/exculpatory evidence and affidavit from Capital One show chief witness testimony was false; therefore Wade meets Schlup/House gateway and defaulted claims should be considered.	State maintains the record as filed is complete and the proof supports conviction; denies that withheld material would have changed outcome.	Not resolved in these filings; Wade seeks an evidentiary hearing and relief — court action not included in file.
2) Brady / prosecutorial suppression	Prosecution withheld materially favorable banking records and investigative files that would have impeached Coulter and altered the verdict.	State (in its Answer) disputes claim or relies on submitted record; supplemental-record dispute raised by Wade.	Allegation preserved in habeas application; no final ruling in provided materials.
3) Ineffective assistance of counsel (investigation, motions, subpoenas)	Cerf failed to investigate/process subpoenas, call or interview Bank of America witnesses, introduce impeachment evidence, move to dismiss or for directed verdict, and abandoned appellate rights — prejudicing outcome under Strickland/Cronic/Flores-Ortega.	State would argue counsel’s choices were trial strategy and that Wade cannot show prejudice sufficient to overturn conviction.	Wade requests an evidentiary hearing on unresolved Strickland claims; record shows claim asserted but no adjudication included.
4) Jury charge — reasonable-doubt instruction & circumstantial-evidence construct	Trial court refused to give Wade a full definitional reasonable‑doubt instruction; the charge distorted reasonable-doubt standard and misapplied circumstantial-evidence law, warranting habeas relief.	State would defend the jury charge as legally sufficient or claim no harmful error.	Wade requests relief; no decision on the charge error appears in the provided documents.

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (prosecution must disclose materially exculpatory evidence)
Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (materiality standard for suppressed evidence that could affect outcome)
House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518 (actual-innocence gateway standard for federal review of defaulted claims)
Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (standard for establishing actual innocence to overcome procedural default)
Cronic v. United States, 466 U.S. 648 (prejudice may be presumed in limited structural circumstances of counsel failure)
Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (counsel’s failure to consult regarding appeal may establish prejudice)
Glover v. United States, 531 U.S. 198 (any amount of actual jail time can satisfy prejudice inquiry)
Ex parte Adams, 768 S.W.2d 281 (Tex. Crim. App. — newly discovered evidence standard and relief)
Hawkins v. State, 646 S.W.2d 191 (Tex. Crim. App. — discussion of reasonable-doubt instruction and circumstantial evidence)
Geesa v. State, 820 S.W.2d 154 (Tex. Crim. App. — jury-instruction and reasonable-doubt issues)