## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS N O . A P - 76, 366
EX PA R TE M A N D I S BA R R O W , A ppl i c ant
ON AP P LI CAT I ON F OR A W RI T OF HABE AS CORP US CAUS E N O. W - 3 7 - 0 5 6 D I N T HE 3 2 0 J UDI CI AL DI S TR I CT COURT TH FROM POTTER CO UNTY
P er cur i am . O P I N I O N Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Crim i n al P ro ce dure, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for writ of habe as cor

pus. Ex pa rte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant plea ded gui l t y to ag g ravated robber y and wa s place d on defe rre d adjudication community supervision for ten y ear s. On May 10, 2000, the trial cour

t adjudicated him guilty and sentenc ed him to twenty y ear s’ imprisonment. The SeventhCourt of Appea ls affirme d the sentenc e . Ba rro w v . S tate , N o . 0 7
- 0 0
- 0 0 2 8 0
- CR , 2 0 0 1 T e x. App. L EXI S 3697 (Tex. App.–Amarillo, J une 4, 2001, no pet.) (not desig nated f or publication). Applicant conte nds, inte r a lia , that newly -discover ed evide nce a bout Ag ent Tom Coleman’s2

reliability and “pattern of pe rjury” shows that Applica nt’s due proc ess rig hts were violated at the adjudication hea

ring . He a lso alleg es that the State did n o t p rovide the de fense with material impeachme nt evidence reg ardingColeman’s re putation for dishonesty and his leg al problems and various employ

ment problems with both the Panhandle Reg ional Nar cotics Tra ffickingTask F orce and other police ag encie s. This Court r ece ived the orig inal 11.07 application on September 30, 2002 and denie d relief without a written orde r on Jul y

16, 2003. We withdrew that de cision, rec onsidered the case on our
own m o t i o n , an d rema

nded it to the trial court f or finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law on Dec ember

19, 2009. On re mand, the Potter County district court dete rmined that, while the trial prose cutor ha d no knowledg e about witness Tom Coleman’ s “questionable” cre dibilit y , other State a g ents wer e
awa re of the inf or matio n, wh ic h w a s n ot p ro vid e d to a pp lic ant o r c ouns e l. T he tr ia l c ourt a lso
a do pte d th e g lob a l f

ind ing s o f f

a c t f ro m th e Swi sh e r C ounty

p o s t - c o nv ic tio n li tig a tio n in oth e r “ Tu lia Cases” in the 242 District Court. Some of those finding s applied spe ci fi ca l l y to applicant’s nd adjudication of gui l t . T h e t rial cour t concluded that without the testim ony of Tom Coleman, “the Court wo uld no t hav e pr oc e e de d to adj ud ic a tio n an d wou ld h a ve c on tin ue d App lic ant o n c omm

un ity supervision.” Appli ca n t i s entitled to relief. Brady v. M aryland , 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Relief is g rante d. The judg ment adjudicatingg uilt in C ause N o. W-37-056 D in t h e 320 J udicial District Court of th Potte r County is s e t a sid e , a

nd Ap pli c ant i s r e mand e d to the c us tod y of the She ri ff

of Potte r County to a ns we r t he a lle g a tio ns that he vio late d th e te rm s o f h is d e fe rr e d a dju dic a tio n c omm un ity supervision
.3

Copies of this opinion s h a llb e s e nt t o th e T e xa s D e partment of Criminal Just ice–Corr ectional I nstitut ions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Deliver ed: J une 30, 2010 Do No t Pu

bli sh