## IN THE COUR T OF CRIM INA L A PPEA LS

OF TEXA S

N O S

. W R

- 9 0

, 4 4 2

- 0 1 A N D W R

- 9 0

, 4 4 2

- 0 2

E X P A R T E D E R E K L E E C A S E Y

, J R

. , A p p l i c a n t

O N A P P L I C A T I O N S F O R W R I T S O F H A B E A S C O R P U S

C A U S E N O S

. 1 2 1 1 0

- D & 1 2 1 1 1

- D I N T H E 3 5 0 D I S T R I C T C O U R T T H

F R O M T A Y L O R C O U N T Y

K E L L E R

, P

. J

. , fi l e d a d i s s e n t i n g o p i n i o n i n w h i c h Y E A R Y

, S L A U G H T E R

, a n d

M C C L U R E

, J

. J

. , j o i n e d

.

T h i s i s n o t a t y

pi cal B r ady cl ai m b eca us e A ppl i can t pl ed gui l

t y an d i t i s un s et t l ed wh et h er 1

B r ady appl i es t o a gui l

t y pl ea. It i s a l s o a t y

p i c a l beca

us e t h e al l eged ex cul

pat o ry ev i den ce was

rev eal ed at t h e pun i s h

m en t s t age o f t ri al

, an d def

en s e co un s el co ul d h av e, b ut di d n o t

, rai s e a

co m pl ai n t at t h at t i

m e. T h e s e hu rdl es m

i gh t b e o v erco m e i

n t h i s cas e b eca

us e t h e St at e m ade

af f i rm at i v e m i s repr es en t at i o n s pri o r t o t h e gui l

t y pl ea, rat h er t h an s i

m pl y f ai l i n g t o di s cl o s e ev i den ce,

an d b eca us e A ppl i can t h as rai s ed an i

n ef f e c t i v e as s i s t an ce cl ai

m regardi n g h i s at t o rn ey ’ s f

ai l ure t o

di s co v er an d ch al l en ge t h e St at e’ s m i s repr es en t at i o n s

. In an

y ev en t

, t h e ev i den ce do es n o t appea r

t o b e m at eri al o r prej udi ci al b eca us e A ppl i can t t es t i f i ed at pun i s h

m en t t h at h e kn ew t h e i

n di v i dual s

B r ady v. Maryland

, 373 U.S

. 83 (1963)

. 1CASEY DI SSENT — 2

h e f i red at were po l i ce o f

f i cers

. T h at i s wh

y I ul t i m at el y m us t di s s en t f ro m t h e Co urt ’ s di s po s i

t i o n

,

an d wh y I wo ul d den

y rel i ef

.

A ppl i can t pl ed gui l

t y t o t wo co un

t s o f aggrav at ed as s aul

t o f a pub l i c serv an

t

. He h ad sh o t

at t wo po l i c e o f

f i cers

. Be f

o re t ri al

, t h e St at e repr es en t ed t h at t h e po l i ce o f

f i cers h ad repeat edl

y

i den t i f i ed t h em s el

v es as po l i ce o f

f i cers b ef o re t h e sh o o t i

n g s t art ed. But at t h e pun i s h m en t s t age o f

t ri al

, t h e o f

f i cers t es t i f

i ed t h at t h ey h ad n o t do n e so

.

In United States v. R uiz

, t h e Supr em e Co urt h el d t h at B r

ady do es n o t appl

y t o i m peac h m en t

ev i den ce t h at was n o t rev eal ed b ef o re a gui l t y pl ea pursuan

t t o a pl ea agreem

en t

. In United St ates 2

v. Conr oy

, t h e F i f

t h C i r c u i t wen t f urt h er, h o l di

n g t h at “ a gui l

t y pl ea precl

udes t h e def

en dan t f ro m

as s ert i n g a B r ady v i o l at i o n

. ” T h e Fi f

t h C i r cui t ex pl i ci t l y decl i n ed t o m ake a di s t i

n ct i o n b et wee n 3

ex cul pat o ry an d i

m peac h m en t ev i den ce f

o r purpo s es o f i

t s h o l di n g. A n d t h e F i f t h Ci rcui t at l eas t 4

i m pl i ci t l y decl i n ed t o di s t i

n gui s h b et wee n pl ea-b argai n an d o pen -pl ea cas es b eca us e t h e cas e b ef

o re

i t was a gui l

t y pl ea wi

t h o ut an agreem

en t

. T h e F i f

t h Ci rcui t h as reco gn i zed Conr

o y as b i n di n g 5

precede n t i n i t s j uri s di ct i o n as recen

t l y as 2018. W e ar e n o t b o un d b y F i f t h Ci rcui t deci s i o n s

, b ut 6 7

536 U.S

. 622, 633 (2002)

. 2

567 F

. 3d 174, 178 (5t h Ci r. 2009). 3

Id. at 179. 4

See id. at 177 (“ Co n

ro y pl eade d gui l

t y t o al l co un

t s wi t h o ut a pl ea agreemen

t ”). 5

A lvar ez v. City of B r ow

ns ville, 904 F

. 3d 382; 392 (5t h Ci r. 2018) (en b an c) (“ Pr i o r t o t h i s 6

co urt gran

t i n g A lvar ez ’ s pet i

t i o n f o r reh eari n g en b an c, s et t l ed precede n t i n t h i s ci rcui t h el d t h at t h ere

was n o co n s t i

t ut i o n al ri gh

t t o B r ady m at eri al pri o r t o a gui l t y pl ea. [Ci

t i n g Conr oy ]. A l v arez argues

t h at un der B r

ady t h e v i deo s o f t h e i

n ci den t b et wee n h i

m an d Of f i cer A ri as co n s t i

t ut ed ex cul

pat o ry

ev i den ce t h at h e was co n s t i t ut i o n al l y en t i t l ed t o b ef

o re t h e en t ry o f h i s gui l

t y pl ea. [Ci

t i n g B r ady ].

T h i s co urt decl i

n es t h e i n v i t at i o n t o upro o t i

t s precede n

t

. ”). See also A lvar ez v. City of B r ow ns ville

, 860 F

. 3d 799, 802 (5 Ci

r. 2017) (“ Conr

oy t h us ex t en ded t h e i

m peac h m en t ev i den ce h o l di

n g o f Rui z thCASEY DI SSENT — 3

t h e F i f t h Ci rcui t ’ s precede n

t s h o ws t h at i

t i s at l eas t un s et t l ed wh et h er a def en dan t wh o pl eads gui l

t y

can adv an ce a v i ab l e B r

ady cl ai m ab o ut t h e S t at e’ s f

ai l ure t o di s cl o s e ex cul

pat o ry ev i den ce.

But t h e St at e di d n o t m erel y f ai l t o d i s c l o s e t h e ev i den ce. It m ade af f i rm at i v e

m i s repr es en t at i o n s ab o ut i

t s ev i den ce pri o r t o t h e pl ea. W h et h er o r n o t B r

ady appl i es

, an af

f i rm at i v e

m i s repr es en t at i o n b y t h e S t at e co ul d, i n an appro pri at e cas e, ren der a pl ea i n v o l un t ary

. 8

But t h ere i s an o t h er pro b l em

. T h e f act t h at o f

f i cers di d n o t i den

t i f y t h em s el v es as s uch was

rev eal ed at t h e pun i s h

m en t s t age o f t ri al

. Def

en s e co un s el co ul d h av e o b j ect ed at t h at t i

m e an d as ked

t o h av e t h e pl ea wi

t h drawn

. Be caus e h e di d n o t

, an y B r ady cl ai m wo ul d s eem t o h av e b een f o rf ei t ed

as a resul t

. If t h i s i s a m

i s repr es en t at i o n cl ai m

, t h en t h ere m

i gh t b e an argum en

t f o r e x em pt i n g i t 9

f ro m prese rv at i o n r e q u i r e m en t s an d perh aps

, i

n do i n g s o

, i m po s i n g a h eav i er b urden t o s h o w

m at eri al i t y o r prej udi ce. 1 0

t o co v er ex cul

pat o ry ev i den ce as wel l

, an d we are b o un d b y t h at deci s i o n

. ”).

Gonz ales v. State

, 435 S. W

. 3d 801, 813 n

. 11 (T ex

. Cri m

. A pp. 201 4 ) (“ [F ]ederal 7

co n s t i t ut i o n al i n t erpr et at i o n s o f t h e F i f

t h Ci rcui t Co urt o f A

ppeal s are n o t b i

n di n g o n t h i s Co urt

. ”).

See E x par te P almber

g

, 491 S. W

. 3d 804, 810 (T ex

. Cri m

. A pp. 2016) ( “p r o s ecut o ri al 8

m i s repr es en t at i o n ” m i gh

t caus e a gui l

t y pl ea t o b e “ co n s t i

t ut i o n al l y ch al l en geab l e”).

W ilson v. State, 7 S. W

. 3d 136, 146 (T ex

. Cri m

. A pp. 1999) (“ A

ppel l an t n o w cl ai m s t h at t h e 9

St at e’ s t ardy di s cl o s ure v i o l at ed h i s due pro ces s ri gh t t o t h e di s cl o s ure o f ex cul pat o ry ev i den ce un der

B r ady v. Mary land

. Ho wev er, appel l an t h as pro cedural l

y def aul t ed h i s cl ai

m

. T o prese rv e err o r, a

co m pl ai n t m us t b e m ade t o t h e t ri al co urt i

n a t i m el y f as h i o n

. T o b e t i

m el y

, a co m pl ai n t m us t b e m ade

as s o o n as t h e gro un ds f

o r co m pl ai n t i s apparen

t o r s h o ul d b e apparen

t

. T h at s ub s equen

t ev en t s m ay

caus e a gro un d f

o r co m pl ai n t t o b eco m

e mo re apparen

t do es n o t ren der t i

m el y an o t h erwi s e un

t i m el y

co m pl ai n t

. ”) (ci t at i o n s o m

i t t ed).

See E x par te Nappe r

, 322 S. W

. 3d 202, 241 (T ex

. Cri m

. A pp. 2010) (“ [W ]h et h er appl i can t 1 0

h as f o rf ei t ed h i s co m

pl ai n t

. . . i s co m

pl i cat ed b y t h e f

act t h at t h e St at e h as a c o nt i nu i n g ‘ dut y t o

co rr ect “ f al s e” t es t i m o n y wh en ev er i

t co m es t o t h e St at e’ s at t en t i o n

. ’ ”). See also E

x par te Chav ez

, 371 S. W

. 3d 200, 215 (T ex

. Cri m

. A pp. 2012) (K el l er, P. J

. , di s s en t i n g) (“ T h e kn o wi

n g us e o f perj ured

o r f al s e t es t i m o n y i s a rar e ex cept i o n t o t h e rul e agai n s t co n s i deri

n g cl ai m s o n h ab eas t h at co ul d h av eCASEY DI SSENT — 4

T h ere i s

, h o wev er, an eas i er ro ut e—i n ef f ect i v e as s i s t an ce o f co un s el

. A ppl i can t cl ai m s t h at

co un s el was i

n ef f ect i v e f o r f ai l i n g t o di s co v er a

n d rai s e t h e i s s ue at t ri al

. T h at cl ai m i s appro pri at el

y

rai s ed f o r t h e f i rst t i m e o n h ab eas

. W e co ul d rem an d t o h av e co un s el ex pl ai n wh y h e di d n o t rai s e

a c o m p l a i nt ab o ut t h e f

al s i t y o f t h e pret ri al i

n f o rm at i o n i

n di cat i n g t h at t h e o f

f i cers h ad i den

t i f i ed

t h em s el v es an d ab o ut t h e St at e’ s f ai l ure t o di s cl o s e t h at t h e o f f i cers h ad n o t i

n f act i den t i f i ed

t h em s el v es

, b ut

, as I ex

pl ai n b el o w, we n eed n o t do s o

.

W h et h er t h i s cl ai

m i s v i ewe d as an ex cul

pat o ry ev i den ce cl ai

m

, a m i s l eadi ng i nf

o rm at i o n

cl ai m

, o r an i n ef f ect i v e as s i s t an ce cl ai

m

, t h e ev i den ce m

us t s t i l l s at i s f

y t h e s t an dard f

o r m at eri al i

t y o r

prej udi ce. A

ppl i can t can n o t s h o w m

at eri al i t y o r prej udi ce b eca

us e h e a d m i t t e d at t h e pun i s h m en t

s t age t h at h e kn ew t h e i

n di v i dual s h e sh o t at were po l i ce o f f i cers :

I di d n o t pl an f

o r an y o f t h at t o t ake pl ace t h at n i gh t i n J an uary

, b ut I s aw m

y way o ut

. I s aw m y l i f e f ree f ro m depres s i o n

, f

ree f ro m p a i n, f

ree f ro m drug addi ct i o n

, i

n t h e

f o rm o f t h o s e t wo o f

f i cers wi t h gun s i n t h ei r h an ds

. I f

i red i n t h ei r di rect i o n

. I di dn ’ t

ai m at t h em

. I f

i red h i gh

, t ry i

n g j us t t o pro v o ke t h em t o ki l l m e. I kn ew m

y s uf f eri n g

wo ul d en d o n ce an d f

o r al l o n ce t h ey ret urn ed f i re an d I wo ul d b e dead.

A ppl i can t ’ s adm i s s i o n t h at h e kn ew t h e i

n di v i dual s were po l i ce o f

f i cers i n co n t ro v ert i b l y es t ab l i s h ed

t h e “ kn o ws i s a pub l i c s erv an t ” e l e m en t o f t h e o f

f en s e t h at t h e St at e n eede d t o pro v e t o es t ab l i s h

gui l t

. Gi v en t h at adm

i s s i o n

, A ppl i can t h as n o t s h o wn b y a pr epo n deran ce o f t h e ev i den ce t h at h e 1 1

wo ul d h av e decl i

n ed t o pl ead gui l

t y

. A n d an y m i t i gat i n g i m pact f l o wi n g f ro m t h e o f

f i cers ’ f ai l ure t o

i den t i f y t h em s el v es was av ai l ab l e f

o r co n s i derat i o n at pun i s h m en t

.

b een r a i s e d e a rl i er. It i s appro pri at e t o m ake t h i s ex cept i o n b eca us e o f t h e egregi o us n es s o f t h e

St at e' s co n duct

. W

h en t h e S t at e kn o wi

n gl y s ub v ert s t h e s y s t em

, a def en dan t ' s n egl i gen ce i

n f ai l i n g

t o as s ert a cl ai

m s h o ul d n o t b y i

t s el f en d t h e an al

y s i s

. In s t ead, a b el at ed cl ai m o f t h i s s o rt i s s ub

j ect

t o t h e gen eral h ab eas h arm s t an dard. ”).

See T E X

. P E N A L C O D E § 22. 01(b )( 1). 1 1CASEY DI SSENT — 5

I respe ct f ul l y di s s en t

.

F i l ed: Jan uary 27, 2021

Do n o t pub l i s h