## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S

O F T E X A S

NOS. WR-90, 442-01 & WR-90, 442-02

EX P ART E DERE K LE E CASEY, JR., Appl icant

ON AP P LI CAT I ONS F OR WRI TS O F HAB EA S CORP US

CAUSE NOS. 12110-D & 12111-D I N THE 350TH DI STRI CT COURT

F ROM TA YL OR COUNT Y

P er cur iam

. K E E L , J.

, f

il ed a concur r ing opin ion, joi ned by H E R V E Y , R I C H A R D S O N , and W A L K E R , JJ. K E L L E R , P

. J.

, f il ed a diss enti ng opin ion, joi ned by Y E A R Y , S L A U G H T E R , and M C C L U R E , JJ. Y E A R Y , J.

, f il ed a diss enti ng opin ion, joi ned by K E L L E R , P

. J.

, S L A U G H T E R , and M C C L U R E , JJ.

O P I N I O N

A ppl i can t was co n

v i ct ed o f t w o c h arges o f aggrav at ed as s aul t o f a pub l i c s erv an

t an d

s en t en ced t o t wen

t y -f i v e y ears ’ i

m pri s o n m en t i n eac h cas e. Upo n A

ppl i can t ’ s mo t i o n t o wi

t h draw,

t h e E l ev en

t h Co urt o f A

ppeal s di s m

i s s ed h i s appea l

. Cas ey v. State

, No

. 11-17- 0 0 1 3 8

- C R (T ex

.

A pp. —E as t l an d Dec

. 14, 2017) (n o t des i gn at ed f o r pub l i cat i o n ). A

ppl i can t f i l ed t h es e appl i cat i o n s

f o r wri t s o f h ab eas co rpus i

n t h e co un

t y o f co n v i ct i o n

, an d t h e di s t ri ct cl erk f o rwarded t h em t o t h i s

Co urt

. See T E X

. C O D E C R I M

. P R O C

. art

. 11. 07.

A ppl i can t co n t en ds

, am o n g o t h er t h i

n gs

, t h at h i s pl ea was i

n v o l un t ary b eca us e t h e St at e2

w i t hh el d m at eri al i

n f o rm at i o n f

ro m t h e def

en s e, s peci f

i cal l y t h at t h e o f

f i cers di d n o t i den

t i f y

t h em s el v es

. T h e t ri al co urt f

o un d t h at t h e al l eged “ f

ai l ure t o i den

t i f y ” was ei t h er un t rue o r un kn o wn

t o t h e pro s ecut o r an d t h at t h e B r a d y vi o l a t i o n appea

rs t o b e b as ed o n s pecul at i o n b y A ppl i can t

.

Ba s ed o n t h e r eco rd, we di s agree.

T h e po l i ce o f

f i cers t es t i f

i ed at t h e pun i s h

m ent h eari

n g t h at t h ey di d n o t v erb al l y i den t i f y

t h em s el v es as po l i ce o f

f i cers b ef o re A ppl i can t s h o t at t h em

. A

ppl i can t ’ s t ri al at t o rn ey

, J o h

n Yo un g,

t es t i f i ed b y af f i dav i t at t h e h ab eas s t age t h at t h e pret ri al di s co v ery m at eri al s i n di cat ed t h at t h e po l i ce

di d i den t i f y t h em s el v es b ef o re A ppl i can t s h o t at t h em

. Yo un g t o l d A ppl i can t t h at t h e f i l e s h o wed t h at

t h e o f f i cers “ repeat edl

y ” warn ed h i

m t h at t h ey were o f

f i cers

. A ppl i can t ’ s appel l at e at t o rn ey

, L an do n

T ho m p s o n, t es t i f

i ed b y af f i dav i t t h at t h e pret ri al di s co v ery m at eri al s di d n o t rev eal t h e “ f ai l ure t o

i den t i f y ” an d t h at A

ppl i can t wo ul d n o t h av e pl eade d gui l t y i f t h at ev i den ce h ad b een di s cl o s ed b ef o re

h i s pl ea. No t h i

n g s ugges t s t h at A

ppl i can t kn ew o f t h e “ f

ai l u r e t o i d e nt i f

y ” ev i den ce un

t i l t h e

pun i s h m en t h eari n g.

F av o rab l e ev i den ce was wi t h h el d f ro m A ppl i can t

, an d i f i t h ad b een di s cl o s ed, h e wo ul d n o t

h av e pl eade d gui l

t y

. T h e reco rd t h

us s ub s t an t i at es A ppl i can t ’ s B r ady cl ai m

. Ot h er co n s i derat i o n s

, l i ke

t h e pro s ecut i o n ’ s po s s i

b l e i gn o ran ce o f t h e “ f

ai l ure t o i den

t i f y ” ev i den ce, are i

rr el ev an t t o A ppl i can t ’ s

i n v o l un t ary -pl ea cl ai

m un der B r

ady

. See Har

m v. State

, 183 S. W

. 3d 40 3

, 4 0 6 ( T e x. Cri m

. A pp.

2006).

Re l i ef i s g r a nt e d

. B r ady v. United States

, 397 U.S

. 742 (1970)

. T h e j udgm en t s i n caus e

n um b ers 12110-D & 12111-D i n t h e Di s t ri ct Co urt o f T ay l o r Co un t y are s et as i de, an d A

ppl i can t i s

rem an ded t o t he c us t o dy o f t h e Sh eri f f o f T ay l o r Co un t y t o an s wer t h e ch arges as s et o ut i n t h e

i n di ct m en t

. T h e t ri al co urt s h al l i s s ue an y n ece s s ary b en ch warran t wi t h i n t en day s f

ro m t h e dat e o f3

t h i s Co urt ’ s m an dat e.

Co pi es o f t h i s o pi

n i o n s h al l b e s en

t t o t h e T ex as Depa

rt m en t o f Cri m i n al J us t i ce–C o rr ect i o n al

In s t i t ut i o n s Di v i s i o n an d t h e Bo ard o f Pardo n s an d Paro l es

.

Del i v ered: J an

uary 27, 2021

Do n o t pub l i s h