## IN TH E C OU RTOF C RI MIN A L A PP EA LS O F T E XAS N O S. A P - 75, 954 & A P - 75, 955 E X P A R T E M IC H A E L N A W E E B L A IR ON AP P LI CAT I ONS F OR W RI TS OF HABE AS CORP US I N CA USE NO S . W 3 6 6 - 8 1 3 4 4 - 9 3 ( HC 3 & HC 4 ) I N THE 3 6 6 TH J UDI CI AL DI S TRI CT CO URT O F COLLI N CO UNTY P ercur iam . O P I N I O N T hes e ar e pos tconvi ct i on appl i cat i ons forw r i t s of habe as corpus fi l ed purs uantt o t he pr ovi s i ons of Texas C ode of Cri m i nal Pr ocedur e art i cl e 11. 071. I n Sept ember1994, a j ury found appl i cant gui l ty of the off ens e of c api t al m ur der
. T he j uryal s o ans w er ed the s peci al i s su es subm i t t ed pur s uantt o T exas C ode of Cri m i nal P roc ed u re a rt icl e 3 7 . 0 7 1 in f av o r of the S tat e, an d the tri al co u rt , ac co rdin g ly , set ap p li ca n t’ s puni s hm entatdeath. T hi s C our taff i r m ed appl i cant ’ s conv ic t i on and s ent ence on di r ect
a p p e a l. B la ir v . S ta te , N o. 72, 009 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. Sept . 25, 1996) ( no t d esig n at ed for publ i cat i on)
. A ppl i cant fi l ed hi s i ni t i al pos t - convi ct i on appl i cat i on forw r i tof habe as corpus in th e c o n v ic tin g c o u rt o n J a n u a ry 2 0 , 1 9 9 8 . T h is C o u rt d e n ie d a p p lic a n t r e lie f
. E x p a rteB la ir , N o . W R -40 , 7 1 9 -01 (T ex . C ri m . A p p . A p r. 7 , 1 9 9 9 ) (no t des ign ated fo r pu b li ca ti o n ).

T hi s C our tl at erdi s m i s s ed appl i cant ’ s fi r s ts ubs equent appl i cat i on on Sept ember13, 2000, and r emanded hi s s econd s ubs equentappl i cat i on t o the t r i al courton M ay30, 2001, to c o n s id e r f

iv e o f th e is s u e s ra is e d
. E x p a rte B la ir , No s . W R- 4 0 , 7 1 9
- 0 2 a n d - 0 3 ( Te x . Cr i m. A p p . S e p t. 13 , 2 0 0 0 a n d M a y3 0 , 2 0 0 1 ) (n e ith e r d e sig n a ted f o r p u b lica tio n ). W h ile
a p p lica n t’s s e c o n d su b se q u e n t w rit ap p lica tio n w a s u n d e r c o n sid e r a ti o n b yth e trial c o u rt, ap p li ca n t fi led a thir d su b seq u en t app li ca ti o n all eg ing o n e a d d it ion al claim
. T h is third
su b se q u e n t a p p lica tio n w a s re m a n d e d b yth is C o u rt to th e trial c o u rt to b e c o n sid e re d w ith th e s e c o n d s u b s e q u e n t w ri t a p p lic a tio n . E x p a rte B la ir , N o. W R
- 40, 719- 05 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. D e c . 1 3 , 2 0 0 6 ). T h e trial c o u rt re tu rn e d b o th su b se q u e n t a p p lica tio n s to th is C o u rt, b u t b o th
w er e r emanded t o the tr i al courta s econd t i m e s o thati tcoul d cons i deraddi t i onal evi dence
s u b m itte d a f

te r t h e tr ia l c o u rt ’s f

in d in g s o n th e s u b s e q u e n t w ri ts w e re a lr e a d ym a d e . See Ex p a rte B la ir , N o. W R
- 40, 719- 05 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. A pr i l 9, 2008)
. T he tr i al courthas r etur ned the s econd a nd thi r d s ubs equentw r i tappl icat i ons t o thi s C our tw i th i t s fi ndi ngs and
con cl usi on s. T he tr i al courtfi nds , “The St at e of T exas has conce ded that , i n l i ght of the r emai ni ng i ncul p atoryevi dence i n the r ecor d, [A ppl i cant ] has es t abl i s hed bycl earand convi nci ng ev iden ce t hatno r eas onabl e j ur orw oul d have c onvi ct ed hi m i n l i ghtof new l ydi s cover ed evi dence
. ” See al

s o E x par t e El iz ondo , 9 4 7 S. W . 2 d 2 0 2 , 2 0 9 ( Te x . Cr i m. App 1 9 97) ( hol di ng thatt o gai n r el i ef on a bar e ac tual i nnocenc e cl ai m , the appl i cantm us ts how bycl ear and convi nci ng evi dence that no r eas onabl e j ur or w oul d have convi ct ed hi m i n l i ghtof thenew evi dence )
. T he t r i al court ul t i m at el yconcl udes , “The post
- convi ct i on D N A r es ul t s and

the e v iden ce d isco v ere d in the S tat e’s n ew inv esti g ati o n h av e su b stan ti all y ero d ed the S tat e’s tr ial ca se a g ains t [ap p li ca n t] . T h is ne w ev iden ce in lig h t o f th e re m ainin g incu lpato ry e v id e n c e in th e re c o rd , h a s es tab lish e d b y c lea r an d c o n v in c in g e v id e n c e th a t n o re a so n a b le j ur orw oul d have c onvi ct ed [a ppl i cant ] i n l i ghtof new l ydi s cover ed evi dence
. ” T he tr i al
c o u rt’s f in d in g s a n d c o n c lu sio n s a re e x tre m e lyd e taile d a n d w e ll-re a so n e d . In a d d iti o n to set t i ng ou tal l of the evidence in this case, bo th addu ced at tri al and i n col l at eral proceed i ng s, the tr i al courtw ei ghs the new excul pat oryevi dence agai ns tthe i ncul p atoryevi dence fr om trial. F u rth e r, itd e tails th e S tate ’s a d d iti o n a l ex h a u stiv e in v e stig a tio n in re sp o n se to appl i cant ’ s pos t - convi ct i on cl ai m s . T he tr i al court r ecomm ends t o thi s C our tthatr el i ef be gr ant ed. A ft erourr evi ew of t he r ecor d of the pr ocee di ngs on r emand, w e det erm i ne thatt he tr i al cour t ’ s fi ndi ngs of fa ctand conc l us i ons of l aw ar e s uppor t ed bythe r ecor d, and w e adopt them as ourow n. T he r el i ef a ppl i cants eeks i s ther efor e gr ant ed: T he j udgm entof gui l tand
s e n t e n c e o f

d e a th a r e s e ta s i d e , a n d a p p l i c a n ts h a l l a n s we rth e i n d i c t me n ta g a i n s th i m. C opi es of thi s opi ni on s hal l be s ent t o the Texas D epart m entof C r i m i nal J us t i ce, i ns t i tut i onal
a n d p a rd o n s a n d p a ro le s d i v is io n s . See Ex par t e Thom ps on , 153 S. W . 3d 416, 421 ( T ex. C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 5 ); I T I S SO O R D E R E D T H I S T H E 25 D A Y O F JU N E , 2008. TH D o N ot Pub l i sh