Wilbert, Frederick Glenn
WR-9,604-03
| Tex. App. | Mar 16, 2015Background
- Petitioner Frederick Glenn Wilbert was convicted by a Harrison County jury on 2/27/1999 of capital murder and sentenced to life; he is incarcerated at McConnell Unit (TDCJ #934364).
- He seeks the Court’s authorization to file a second/subsequent state habeas application under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.07 and requests consideration under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b).
- Wilbert alleges newly presented evidence (exhibits A and B) showing he was in custody at the time of the murder and that forensic/pathology evidence is inconsistent with the State’s theory, supporting a claim of actual innocence.
- He contends Brady/Banks suppression of exculpatory evidence and ineffective assistance by appointed counsel (failure to pursue exculpatory materials; discovery order not complied with by prosecution).
- He argues he was denied a competency hearing and that procedural defaults should be excused by a Schlup gateway showing of actual innocence; he also asserts limited mental capacity (IQ ~68) and pro se status affected earlier filings.
Issues
| Issue | Wilbert’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authorization to file second/subsequent state habeas | Wilbert says newly presented evidence and Brady violations show actual innocence and justify authorization | State would argue § 2244(b)/art. 11.07 bars successive habeas absent strict statutory showing | Court must evaluate whether Wilbert makes a prima facie showing of newly presented evidence and actual innocence to authorize filing |
| Actual innocence (gateway to review) | New exhibits + autopsy/timing evidence demonstrate he was in custody when murder occurred; no weapon/bullet evidence links him | State would assert evidence was available or insufficiently reliable to meet Schlup standard | Court must apply Schlup standard: whether, in light of new evidence, no reasonable juror would have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Brady/Banks suppression claims | Prosecutor withheld exculpatory materials that would have cleared Wilbert; discovery order not complied with | State would contend either disclosure occurred or suppressed material would not have changed outcome | Court must determine if suppressed evidence was material such that a different result was reasonably possible |
| Denial of competency hearing / ineffective assistance | Wilbert claims he was entitled to a competency hearing and that counsel’s failures denied him due process | State would argue record did not require competency hearing and counsel’s performance did not prejudice the outcome | Court must assess whether competent-hearing error or counsel deficiency produced a constitutional violation warranting relief or authorization to proceed |
Key Cases Cited
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995) (actual innocence gateway standard for review of otherwise procedurally defaulted claims)
- Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (1998) (actual innocence requires more than legal insufficiency; gateway to federal review)
- Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986) (Eighth Amendment prohibits execution of insane prisoners; competency issues implicate due process)
- Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993) (federal habeas relief for actual innocence claims and limits on new-trial-in-light-of-innocence claims)
- Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 668 (2004) (Brady doctrine and materiality of suppressed evidence in capital cases)