## IN THE COUR T OF CRIMINA L APPEALS OF TEX AS

N o. A P - 76, 264

EX PA R TE JESSE BE N A V I D ES , A ppl i c ant

ON AP P LI CAT I ON F OR W RI T OF HABE AS CORP US

I N C A U S E N O . 2 0 0 1 - C R - 0 4 9 3 - W1 F ROM THE 1 8 7 TH J UDI CI AL DI S TR I CT COURT

BEX AR CO UNTY

H O L C O MB , J ., file d a di sse nt ing opi nio n.

Irespe ctfully dissent. After rea ding the rec ord ca ref ully , Iconclude that we should ac cept the trial cour

t’s rec ommendation to gr ant relief. The r ecor d supports the trial cour t’s finding that I rma P en n i n gton’s habea s testimony was, in re levant par

t, “cr edible and be lievable” and

“ pe rs ua siv e .” Th e re c or d a ls o su pp or ts the tr ia l c ourt ’s c on c lus ion tha t, i n li g ht o f t

his ne wl y d i s co v er edev i d en ce , n o re as o n ab l e j u ro r c o u l d h av e c o n v i ct ed J es s e B en av i d es o f t h e c h ar ge

c on ta ine d in

the ind ic tme nt. Allow me t o revie w t he basic fac ts, as t hey are ref lected in the rec ord. On Mar ch 22, 2000, Pennington g ave a

sworn stateme nt to the Be x ar County Sheriff’ s Offic e in which she claimed thatBEN AVI DES - 2

Texas Penal Code § 22.011(a) (1)( A) provide s that “[a] person commits an offense if the 1 person intentionally

or knowing ly

cause s the pene tration of the a nus or sexual org an of a

nother person by any means, without that person’ s consent.” T exas Penal Code § 22.011(b)( 1) provides that “[a] sex ual assault under Subsection (a) (1) is without the consent of the other pe rson if the actor compels the other

person to submit or participate by the use of phy sical for ce or violence.” Th e punis hme nt r a ng e fo r s e xua l a ssa ult is t wo to t we nty y e a rs in p ri so n a

nd a po ssi ble 2 fine of up to $10,000. B e navid e s “ a ssa

ult e d” he r in he r h ome on May 11 , 1 99 9. Pe nn ing on

de sc ri be d th e “ a ssa

ult ,” in

re le va nt p a rt , a s f

oll ow s: “He sat down next to me [on her couch] and he g ot r eally clos e a n d started tou c hin g my

c he st a nd pu tti ng his ha

nd do wn my pa nts a nd Idid n’ t f ig ht. “I am [a] di sabled Ar

my nurse a nd I reme mber alway s telling my patients and their family

[si c] that women should not resist rape a nd the inju ri es would be min ima l. It w a s v e ry

dif fi c ult to n ot d o a

ny thi ng bu t I

did n’ t r e sis t. “The thing [sic] I didn’t want to make him mad a nd the thing I

said nicely

was I don’t fee l very

comforta ble with the things tha t he was doing . He a sked whe re the be d w a s and

he he ld m y

ha nd a nd too k me to the be d tha t is ne xt to the liv ingro om. He too k my

c lot he s o ff , h e on ly un zipp e d his pants a nd br ou g ht the m do wn a bit to ab o u th i s kn ee s an d i n t ro d u ce d h i s p en i s i n t o m y

v agi n a a n d

d i d n o ts t ay v ery l o n g. Ido not known [si c] if he finished bec ause I don’t have sensat i o n on my rig ht side even on the inside.” (Some ca pitaliz ation omitted.) On J anuar y 11, 2001, a B exar County g rand jury returne d an indictment cha rg ing B enavide s with sex ual assault under Texas Pena l Code § 22.011(a) (1)( A) a nd (b)( 1). The indictment alleg ed

1 that, on or about May

11, 1999, Be navides, without Penning ton’s consent, “ inte n t i onally and knowing ly c a

u s e [d ] th e p e n e tr a ti o n ” o f h e r s e xu a l o r g a n w it h h is s e xu a l o r g a n , a n d th a t he “intentionally

and knowingly compelled [ her] to submit and participate by the use of phy sical for ce and violence .” Note that the indictment’s a l l ega t ion of “phy sical for ce a nd violence” on the par

t 2 of B e navid e s d oe s n ot c omp or t w ithPe nn in gton ’s sw or n s ta te me nt g ive n to the B e xar County Sheriff’ s Offic e. On July 24 , 2 00 1, B e navid e s, purs ua nt t o a ve ry fa

vo ra ble ple a ba rg a in, ple d “ no c on te st” toBEN AVI DES - 3

Ihave f ound nothing in the r ecor d indicating that Be navides wa s in court on Dec ember 3 19 and 20, 2007. Perha

ps Pennington wa s mistaken as to the date

. the cha rge i n t h e i n dictment. On that same date, B enavide s signe d a pre -printed f orm entitled “Waiver, Consent to Stipulation of Testimony ,” in which he conce ded that “all of the acts alleg ed [i n the indictment] are true .” On Octobe r 1, 2001, the trial c ourt, following the terms of the plea barg ain, def err ed a f inding of B e navid e s’ g uil t and

pla c e d h im o n c omm

un ity su pe rv isi on fo r a pe ri od of se ve n y e a rs . On Novembe r 6, 2006, the State filed a motion to re voke B enavide s’ community supervision and to proc eed to a

n adjudication of his g uilt. On Fe bruar

y 6, 2007, the trial cour

t revoke d Be navides’ community supervision, adjudg ed him guilty

of sexua l assault as cha rg ed in the indictment, and a ssessed his punishment at imp ri so nme nt f

or tw e nty y e a rs . On April 21, 2009, Be navides filed an application for wr it of habea s corpus on the g round of “a ctual innoce nce.” I n his application, Be navides claimed that “whe n [he] and the c omplainant finally met [i n court in 2007], she stated unequivoca lly that she had ne ver se en h i m b ef o re.” He argued fur

ther that “ no rea sonable juror could have convicted [ him] wher e the c omplainant stated she had never seen [him] befor e in her life.” A ttached to B enavide s’ application was Penning ton’s aff idavit, dated January

30, 2008, in which she stated: “ Iwas pre sent in c ourt on Dec ember 19 and 20, 2007 and s aw J esse B enavide s and nothing in him [ sic] appear ed re cog nizable. Idid not

rec og nize him as the person that assaulted me sexually in [sic] 11 May 1999.” (Some ca

pitaliz ation 3 omitted.) On S eptember 29, 2009, the trial cour t held an evide ntiary

hear ing on B enavide s’ applicationBEN AVI DES - 4

No one e x plained to Penning ton the statutory definition of “se x ual assault,” a nd we do 4 no t kn owho w s he un de rs too d th a t te rm . fo r h a be a s r e lie f. At

that he a ri ng , Pe nn ing ton te sti fi e d, in r e le va

nt p a rt , a s f

oll ow s: Q: Yo u w e re the vic timof a se xua l a ssa

ult ; is that c or

re c t? [4] A: Ye s. Q: The nex t t i m e

– t he first time that I [Defense Counsel] saw y ou was whe n Mr. B e navid e s, wh o w a s o n p ro batio n, he wa s in he re be ingse nte nc e d on a mot ion to re vo ke his pr ob a tio n a

bo ut o ne y e a r a g o. I s th a t c or re c t? A: Ye s, it’ s c or

re c t. * * * Q: All rig ht. Thank y ou for that. And dur ing that hear ing y ou came to me and stated, qu o t e , t h aty o ud i d

n o tr e c o g n i z e M r . B e n a v i d e s a s t h e m a n t h a t a s s a u l t e d y o u . Is that c or re c t? A: Ye s. * * * Q: I s this the man, Mr. Be navides, that sexually assaulted y ou? (Counsel pointing.) A: No. Q: Are y ou cer

tain. A: Ye s. * * * Q : Is t h e r e a n y q u e s t i o n i n yo u r m i n d , o n M a y th e 1 1 t h o f 1 9 9 9 , d i d

s o m e b o dy, s o m e o n e , a n yb o d y s e x u a l l y a s s a u l tyo uo n th a td a y? A: Ye s. An d, un fo rt

un a te ly , y e s, Iha d s uf

fe re d a se xua l a ssa

ult e a rl ie r o ne y e a r, so Iwasn’t sure – Iwas a lrea dy traumatized. Q: Okay . And so, the answe r to my question –BEN AVI DES - 5

A: Ye s. Q: – is y es, on May

the 11th, 1999, y ou wer e sexually assaulted? A: Ye s. Q: And did that sexual assault take plac e in y our home? A: Ye s. * * * Q: And af ter the person [from the a

uto body shop] came inside y our house with y ou – and I [t he State] don’t want to g o into a ll the details of it – but did that person, the male with the name “F laca ” on the unifor m who worke d at the body shop, did that person se x ually

assault y ou on May

the 11th of 1999? A : Y o ukn o w , s e x u a l l y a s s a u l t e d , t h a t ’ s k i n d

o f – t h e s e v e r i t y, i t ’ s v e r

y – Q : I c a n p u ti ta n o t h e r

w a y. A: I t’s a wor d that doesn’t fit, bec ause I was not assa

ulted – Q: Ok a y . L e t me a sk

y ou thi s – A : It w a s c o n s e n s u a l , I g u e s s yo uc a n s a y. Q: Well, let me ask y ou this: Did the person who drove you home have sex wit h y ou o n t h a td a y? A: Ye s. Q: An d d id y ou inv ite tha t pe rs on , w ho dr ov e y ou

ho me that da

y , to have se x with y ou on that day ? Did y ou say to him, “I want to have sex wit h y ou”? (Witness laughs.) A: Idon’t reme mber. Q: Do y ou rec all ever

having made a

statement that would indicate that y ou did not consent to having sex wit h him before ? A: No.BEN AVI DES - 6

Q: Yo u d on ’t

re c a ll e ve r h a vin g ma de a state me nt – A: Say ing “ no”? No. Q: Okay . Did y ou tell any body from l aw en fo rc ement, a police office r, that s o m e b o d y s e x u a l l y a s s a

u l t e d yo uo n t h a td a y? A: Inever used those words. I never said it was sexually assault – sexual assaulted. I t’s something that Inever said. Q: Okay

. Do y ou rec all telling a ny one fr om law enf

orce ment that the per son who ha d s e x with

y ou on tha t da y , that y ou tol d that pe rs on that y ou we re un c omf

or ta ble wi t h wh at t h ey

we re d o i n g? A: Ye s. Q: Okay . Do y ou rec all telling – do y ou rec all having a mee ting with anothe r prosec utor from my

office , a l ad y , o kay , and her name wa s Kirsta Melton, do y ou reme mber that name? A: Ye s. Q: Do y ou

re me mbe r h a vin g a c on ve rs a tio n w ithhe r a bo ut t he se xua lly

– th e c ri me t h a th a p p e n e d t o yo uo n t h a td a y? A: Ye s. Q: Okay . I n that conver sation with her, do y ou rec all telling he r that y ou tol d the pe rs on wh o h a d s e x with

y ou “ no ” a t le a st thr e e tim e s? (Witness laughs.) A: No, I don’t reme mber say

ing that. Inever

said – Idon’t think I ever said “no.” Q : O k a y. D i d

yo u , o n t h e d a y w h e n s o m e b o dy h a d s e x w i t h yo ua tyo u r h o u s e , o k a y, i s t h a ts o m e t h i n g t h a tyo uw a n t e d t o h a p p e n t h a td a y? A: Wanted? No. Q: You did not want that per son to have sex with y ou? A: No, but Iallowed him to.BEN AVI DES - 7

Q : O k a y. A: An d th a t’ s the thi ng , th a t’ s e xac tly wh a t I tol d th e pe rs on , th a t I

did n’ t – t hat I sa id only one time that I

was unc omfortable, but I never said “no.” * * * Q : B e f o r e 1 9 9 5 , w e r e yo ue m p l o ye d i n s o m e c a

p a c i t y? A : Y e s , I w a s a

n u r s e i n t h e A r

m y. Q: Okay , as a n u rs e i n t he Ar my , did y ou have oc casion to mee t victims of sex ual a ssa ult ? A: Ye s. Q: Ok ay . An d did those experience s teac h y ou something a bout the experience of being sexually

assaulted? A: Yes. “ Neve r say

no.” Q: Ok a y . A nd

wh y is that? W hy

is i t th a t y ou fo rm e d the c on c lus ion that a vic tim of sexual assault should never sa y “no”? A: Be cause more injuries oc cur. Q: Okay . And do y ou think that might be one r eason w hy o n M ay t h e 1 1 t h , 1999, yo ud i d n o tw a n tt o s a y “ n o ” o r

r e s i s tm o r e s t r o n g l y? A: I t’s possible, perha

ps. Idon’t reme mber.

* * * Q: Okay . So t h er e’ s re all y no question, though, at this t ime that, ag ain, somebody ha d s e x with

y ou on that da y , M a y 11 th, 19 99 , a

nd it w a s n ot w ithy our c on se nt? * * * A: I t w a s –

tho se wo rds a

re no t pr op e r, be c a

us e Iwo uld

n’ t sa y that it wa s n ot w ith my c on se nt. I t w a s w ithmy

c on se nt. * * *BEN AVI DES - 8

Q : O k a y . B u t, a g a in , my qu e s ti o n is , d o y o u b e li e v e th a t y o u r me mo r y of wha t ha pp e ne d to y ou

on May the 11 th o f 1 99 9 w a s mo re c le a r i n th e mon ths imm e diate ly following that day

or do y ou believe that y our memory of those eve nts is more clea r t o d a y? A: The memory

of those eve nts, I think, is t he same now as they wer e bef ore. Q : O k a y. M r s . P e n n i n g t o n , c a n yo ut e l l u s h o w o l d yo ua r e t o d a y? A: 57. * * * Q: Okay

. Are y ou being – have you been thr eate ned or pr omised, or any thing, f or yo u r t e s t i m o n y? A: No. A s e c on d w itn e ss at th e ha be a s h e a ri ng , K ir sta

Me lto n, te sti fi e d in

pa rt a s f oll ow s: Q: Ms. Melton, can y ou tell the court how you’re employ ed? A : I a m a n A s s i s t a n tC r i m i n a l D i s t r i c tA t t o r n e y. * * * Q: Okay . And wer e y ou the prosec utor assig ned to [Benavides’] case? A: Iwa s. * * * Q: Ok a y . A nd

did y ou – d ur ingthe c ours e of prep ari ng fo r [the ple a ba rg a in hear ing], did y ou have oc casion to have an – to interviewthe victim in the case , a woman by

the name of

I rma Penning ton? A: Ye s. * * * Q: And do y o u r e c a ll , a f

te r h a v in g a n o p p o rtu

n it y to r e v ie w [y o u r ] n o te s , in y our c on ve rs a tio n w ithMs. Pe nn ing ton , d id she te ll y ou that so me on e ha d s e xua lly assaulted he r on May

the 11th of 2001?BEN AVI DES - 9

For the purposes of

Be navides’ a

pplication for ha

beas r elief, a

nd for the pur

poses of the 5 pr e se nt d isc us sio n, we may a ssume that B e navid e s w a s th e pe rs on wh o d ro ve Pe nn ing ton

ho me from the a

uto body shop on the day

in question. That is why Ihave not discusse d the evidenc e pointing to B enavide s as the per son who drove Penning ton home. A: Ye s. Q : 1 9 9 9 , s o r

r y. A: Yea h, the date I

don’t rec all. But, y es, whe n Ms. Pennington came in to visi t me, we talke d about the rape that occur red when she was driven home from the a uto body shop by a man na med J esse B enavide s, who she knew as “F laca .” Q: Okay . And did she indicate to y ou that on that occa sion – when that per son beg an to ma k e s ex ual adva

nces towa

rds her , that she told that person she w as un c omf or ta ble wi th t hat? A: Ye s. Q: And y o u re ca ll whether she told y ou that she also told that person “ no” on a nu mbe r o f o c c a sio ns ? A: At le a st thr e e tim e s. On Oc tob e r 2 6, 20 09 , th e tr ia l c ourt e nte re d in to t

he re c ord tw ent y -t hre e pa g e s o f f a c tfinding s and co n cl usions of law, and r ecommende d that we g rant the ha beas r elief r equeste d, i.e., a j u d gm en to f a cq u i t t al

. Am o n g t h e t ri al co u rt ’s fa ct -f i n d i n gs we re t h e f

o l l o wi n g: (1) “ [T] h er e h as neve r bee n any evidenc e pre sented a t any stag e of this ca se that [Benavide s] intentionally or knowing ly compelled [P enning ton] to submit or participate by

the use of phy sical for ce or violence.” (2) “ This Court doe s not be lieve that I rma Pennington was intentionally ly ing w hen she stated that she didn’t rec og nize [ Be navides] as the man who se x ually assaulted her. H oweve r, this Court questions whether such t estimony is cre dible in light of the other e vidence that establishes that [Bena vides] wa s i n fac t the man who drove [P enning ton] home from the body shop on May

11, 1999.” 5 (3) “ I rma Penning ton does not believe tha t [ Be navides] sex ually assaulted he r.” (4 ) “ I rm a Pe nn ing ton ’s te sti mony

that she conse nte d a

nd ‘a llo we d’ [B e navid e s] toBEN AVI DES - 10

To prove a

proposition by

“cle ar a nd convincing evidenc e” is to prove that the 6 proposition is “highly

probable .” K. B roun (e d.), McCormick on Evidenc e § 340 at 487 (6th ed. 2006). e ng a g e i n s e xu a l a c t i v i t y w i t h h e r , e v e n th o u g h i t m a d e h e r u n c o m f o rt a b l e , [is] cre dible and believa

ble.” (5) “ [W ]hat is persuasive to this Court .

. . is Irma Penning ton’s testimony that what occurre d b etween her

and [Bena

vides], although making her unc omfortable, w as ‘conse nsual.’” (6) “ [T] his Court also believes that I rma P enning ton meant ‘consensual’ in a wa y that would mean that [Be navides] would be found a ctually innocent of se x ual assault.” Among the trial court’s conclusions of law w as the following : “[T] his Court concludes that the ne wl y dis c ov e re d e vid e nc e do e s c le a rl y a nd c on vin c ing ly sh ow . . . that no re a so na ble jur or c ou ld have f ound [Benavide s] guilty

in light of the ne w evidenc e.” To succe ed in an “ actua l innocence ” cla im, an applicant must show by “cle ar a nd convincing evidenc e” that no rea sonable juror would have c on v i ct ed him in li g ht of the new ly discovere d evidenc e. Ex parte Elizondo , 947 S.W .2d 202, 209 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996).

6 When assessing an ac tual innocenc e cla im, this Court m ust normally defe r to the trial cour

t’s fac t-finding s, beca

use the trial c ourt could a ct u al l y see a nd hear the witnesses a

nd was, ther efor e, in the better position to assess the we ight and cre dibilit y of the witnesses’ testimony

. Ex parte Van Alstyne , 239 S.W .3d 815, 817 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007). Ia m satis fi e d tha t Be navid e s has sh ow n by c le a r an d co nv inc ing e vid e nc e that no re a so na ble juror would have convicted him in light of Pennington’ s habea s testimony . The indictment alleg ed that Be navides used “ phy sical for ce a nd violence” to compel Penning ton to s u b m i t t o h is sex ual ad v an ce s . I t is not clear to me that the State ever had any evidenc e to prove the alleg ation of “phy sical for ce a

nd violence,” but, in any event, given Pennington’s clear and dire ct testimony at theBEN AVI DES - 11

habea s hear ing, w hich the trial c ourt found per suasive, no re asonable juror could have found tha t B e navid e s u se d p hy sic a l f or c e a nd vio le nc e to c omp e l Pe nn ing ton to su bmi t. No ta

bly , n oth ingin the re cord sug g ests why

Pennington, an adult woman of appa rently sound mind, would testify as she did unless her testimony

was the truth. I str on g ly su sp e c t tha t the Sta te ha s alw a y s kno wn tha t it ha d a n e xtre me ly

we a k c a se a g a ins t B e n a v i d e s . A s I n o t e d e a r l i e r , P e n n i n g t o n ’ s M a r c h 2 2 , 2 0 0 0 , s t a t e m e n t t o t h e B e xa r C ou nty S h eriff’s Off

ice is inconsistent with the fac tual alleg ations in the indictment. Perhaps that is why the State ag ree d to such a fa vorable plea ba

rg ain for suc h a ser ious charg e. Unlike the majority , I see no basis on which to reje ct t he trial court’s fact- finding s. Ido not see that Pennington’s ha

beas t est imony

was “ evasive ” or “ contra dictory .” Nor do Isee tha t she “wavere d on the iss u e o f consent” or that her “position” on whethe r she wa s sexually assaulted “cha ng ed dra stically ” mi dway throug h her testimony

. I think the m ost that can be said on this recor d is tha t, m idw a y thr ou g h he r te sti mony , Pe nn ing ton re a lize d that “ se xua l a ssa ult ” wa s an in a c c ur a te te rm to a pp ly to w hat ha

pp e ne d b e tw e e n h e r a

nd B e navid e s. We will never know ex actly what happened be tween Penning ton and B enavide s on the day in question. But I

do know that B enavide s has shown to the requisite deg ree of certainty that, in light of this new evide nce, no r easona ble juror would have found that he f orce fully and violently

assaulted Pennington. Ire sp e c tf ull y dis se nt.

FI L ED MAY 26, 2010 DO NO T PU B L I SH