See E x Parte Tuley , 109 S.W .3d 388 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). 1 The ba sis for this conclusion rests on the proposition that it is st ill a violation of the 2 constitution t o punish an innocent person even though thecriminal convic tion process wa s fre e of any constitutional viol ations or other f undamental error s. 

## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS

OF TE XAS N O . A P –75, 580/ 75, 581 EX PA R TE BILL Y FR ED ER I C K A LL EN , A ppl i c ant ON AP P LI CAT I ON F OR A W RI T OF HABE AS CORP US

FROM DALLAS CO UNTY M E YE RS , J. , f

i l e d a di s s e nt i ng o pi ni on i n w hi c h K e l l e r , P. J. j oi ne d.

DI S S E NT I NG OP I NI ON W hen w e i s s ued ouropi ni ons i n E x Part e El iz ondo, 9 4 7 S . W . 2 d 2 0 2 ( Te x . Cr i m. A pp. 1996) , and i t s pr ogeny , w e s etouts peci fi c cr i t er i a thats houl d be partof any 1 a p p lica tio n f

o r a w rit o f

h a b e a s c o rp u s w h e n a n a p p lica n t co n ten d s th a t h e is “ a c tu a lly i nnocent ” of the cr i m e forw hi ch he w as convi ct ed. T w o i m por t antcomponent s of the 2Allen dissent–Pag e 2

E l iz ondo c riter ia a re th a t th e e v id e n c e b e n e w lyd isc o v e re d a n d th a t th e e v id e n c e is a c tu a lly e x c u lp a to ry a n d n o t ju s t c o lla te ra l to th e c o n v ic tio n p ro c e s s . S e e E x P a rte Fra n k lin , 7 2 S . W . 3 d 6 7 1 (T ex . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 2 ). Pr i ort o E l iz ondo , t her e di d exi s ta form of i nnocenc e r el i ef unde rthe ca s e l aw of Sc h lu p v . D e lo , 513 U . S. 298 ( 1995) , butas w e have come t o know , thi s j ur i s prudence r es t ed upon the conc l us i on t hatt he appl i cant ’ s convi ct i on cont ai ned a c ons t i tut i onal v i o l a t i o n , w h i c h i f

r e m o v e d , w o u l d r e s u l ti n n o r a t i o n a l j u r y f i n d i n g th e a p p l i c a n tg u i l ty. R eal i nnocenc e of the appl i cantw as notthe i s s ue, onl ythathe w oul d have be en found not g u i l t y . Un f

o r tu n a t e l yt h e ma

j o r i t yh a s i n c o r r e c t l yi n t e r t wi n e d th e l e g a l i t i e s o f th e s e two c o n c e p ts o f

in n o c e n c e w ith o u t a n yb a s is in la w o r i n th e f a c ts ra is e d in th is c a s e . B ill yF re d e ric k A llen is n o t leg a lly , n o t f a c tu a lly , n o t tec h n ica lly , an d m o st o f a ll, notactual l yi nnocent . T hi s appl i cat i on i s noteven i n t he s ame zi p code a s a Schl up - t ype cl ai m , m uch l es s anyot hert ype of a ctual i nnocenc e cl ai m . Fora Schl up cl ai m , an appl i cantm us tpr ove that , m or e l i kel ythan not , no r eas onabl e j ur orw oul d have c onvi ct ed h im in lig h t o f

th e n e w e v id e n c e . F irst, th is e v id e n c e is n o t n e w . T h is “ n e w lyd isc o v e re d e v id e n c e ” w a s a v a ilab le to A ppl i cantatt he t i m e of tr i al . T he def ens e had a n i nves t i gat or–a form erpol i ce of fi cer w i t h al m os tt hi r t y - y ear s exper i ence –w ho m etw i t h t he pol i ce, obt ai ned a c opyof the p o lice re p o rt, an d d e liv e re d to th e d e f e n se h is o w n re p o rt p rio r to th e trial. A t trial, defe ns e couns el r ai s ed the i s s ue thatthe t es t i fy i ng offi cerl i ed aboutthe vi ct i m nami ngAllen dissent–Pag e 3

Compare Elizondo , 947 S.W .2d 202, (in which the new evidenc e contradicted the 3 evidenc e at trial) with Fran k lin , 7 2 S. W.3 d 6 71 , ( in whic h th enew evide nc edid no t c on fl ic t w ith the victim’s testimony

that she wa s assaulted by the applica

nt). B ill yA llen a s h is a ttac k e r, an d th a t h e h a d a d d e d tw o p a g e s to h is re p o rt to b o lste r th is claim af ter th e re p o rtw as g iven to the d ef en se. T h e juryh ea rd th is argu m en t bu t didn ’t buyi t . T he par amedi c w ho, att he hea r i ng on t he mot i on fornew tr i al , cl ai m ed thathe hear d t he vi ct i m s ay“B i l l yW ayne A l l en” c oul d have be en ca l l ed t o t es t i fyatthe tr i al , but w a s n o t. S e c o n d , this e v id e n c e is n o t ex c u lp a to ry . T h is e v id e n c e d o e s n o t in d ica te A p p lica n t’s in n o c e n c e . T h e f a c t th a t th e re is a B ill yW a yn e A llen w ith w h o m th e v ictim w as al s o acqua i nt ed mayhave be en a f act orthatw oul d have r ai s ed doubtforthe j uryat the tri al, b u t i t do es n o t sup p o rtan ac tual-i n n o ce n ce claim . T h is “n ew ” e v iden ce d o esn ’t e v e n c o n f

lict w ith a n yo f

th e trial te stim o n y . T h e tes tim o n ya t trial w a s th a t th e v ictim named “B i l l yA l l en” a s one of hi s at t acke r s . T he fa ctthats om eone c l ai m ed, aft erthe t r i al , t hatt he vi ct i m m ayhave a l s o s ai d a mi ddl e name does notnegat e thi s t es t i m onyor cal l i t s ver aci t yi nt o ques t i on. 3 B e c a u se th is e v id e n c e is n e ith e r n e w n o r e x c u lp a to ry , itd o e s n o t su p p o rt a n a c tu a li nnocenc e cl ai m . W hi l e i tm ayhave be en pr es ent ed atthe tr i al bythe def ens e as an al t ernat e theoryof the cr i m e, i tdoes nothi ng t o negat e the evi dence agai ns tthe A ppl i cant t hatt he j ur yobvi ous l ybel i eved w hen i tw as pr es ent ed atthe tr i al . A nd, al t hough the A ppl i cantpos tul at es t hathe coul d nothave br oughtthi s cl ai m pr i ort o E l iz ondo , tha t isAllen dissent–Pag e 4

s i m pl ynott rue. B eca us e hi s cl ai m i s couche d i n t erm s of i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el , he coul d have br oughtt hi s cl ai m al w ay s underA r t i cl e 11. 07 of the C ode of C r i m i nal Pr ocedur e. F i nall y , cou nsel ’s perform ance a ttri al and i n the m oti on for new tri al did not r i se t o t he l evel of i neff

ect i ve as s i s t ance . B yar gui ng i n cl os i ng thatthe off i cerhad l i ed and had adde d pages t o hi s offe ns e r epor t , couns el at t empt ed t o r ebutthe off i cer ’ s s t at ement th a t th e v ictim h a d n a m e d B ill yA llen a s h is a ttac k e r. In th e m o tio n f o r n e w trial, A ppl i cant ’ s at t or neydi d notr ai s e evi dence r egar di ng the exi s t ence of B i l l yW ayne A l l en s i nce c ouns el knew t hat , as a mat t erof l aw , a l ack of di l i gence on hi s partw oul d not ent i t l e A ppl i cantt o r el i ef. H e w as r i ght . H ow ever , fors om e r eas on the maj or i t ynow s ay s t hathe s houl d have i ncl uded i tanyw ayand thatnotdoi ng s o cons t i tut ed i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el . N oti ncl udi ng i nform at i on thatw as nota bas i s forgr ant i ng a new t r i al s ounds l i ke r eas onabl e pr ofes s i onal as s i s t ance t o m e. I not e thatthe tr i al cour thas neveri ndi cat ed thatcouns el w as i neff ect i ve, and has i n fac ts t at ed expl i ci t l ythattr i al c o u n s e l h a d n o t b e e n in e f f e c tiv e . I ti s cl eart hatt he maj or i t yw ant s t o gi ve thi s A ppl i canta new tr i al , buti tcan’ tfi nd a l egi t i m at e r eas on fordoi ng s o. A s a r es ul t , i thas deci ded t o s acr i fi ce i neff ect i ve a s s is ta n c e a n d a c tu a l- in n o c e n c e ju ri s p ru d e n c e . I h o p e M a c h ia v e lli w a s ri g h t. T h e m a jo rityh a s w e ig h e d th e e v id e n c e a n d h a s g iv e n m o re w e ig h t to a n a f f id a v it bya par amedi c s t at i ng t hatt he vi ct i m i ncl uded the mi ddl e name “W ayne” w henAllen dissent–Pag e 5

i dent i fy i ng hi s at t acke rt han i tgi ves t o t he tr i al t es t i m onyof a pol i ce of fi cer , hi s pol i ce re p o rt f ro m th e n ig h t o f

th e o f f e n se , an d th e f

in g e rp rin t ev id e n c e th a t w a s p re se n ted to a n d w e ig h e d b yth e ju ry . B e c a u se I stro n g lyd isa g re e w ith th is d e c isio n , I re sp e c tf u lly d iss e n t.

M ey ers , J.

Fi l ed: February4, 2009 D o N ot Pub l i sh