Court Opinion

ID: 9896463
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-13 00:13:16.191152+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:02.096772
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
                       OF TEXAS

                                  NO. WR-94,420-01

             EX PARTE WILLIE MORNEL THOMAS, Applicant

      ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
CAUSE NO. C-297-W012152-1234864-A IN THE 297TH DISTRICT COURT
                  FROM TARRANT COUNTY

       Per curiam. KELLER, P.J., and YEARY, J., dissented.

                                      OPINION

       Applicant was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The

Second Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Thomas v. State, No. 02-11-00289-CR

(Tex. App.—Ft. Worth Nov. 9, 2012)(not designated for publication). Applicant filed this

application for a writ of habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and the district clerk

forwarded it to this Court. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07.

       This Court initially filed and set Applicant’s application to examine whether

“knowing use” and “unknowing use” of false testimony claims should employ different
                                                                              THOMAS — 2

standards of materiality or, in at least some cases, be susceptible to different standards of

harm. Having reviewed the parties’ briefs, and having heard oral argument, we now

conclude that our decision to file and set on that issue was improvident.

       As to the merits of the application, Applicant alleges, among other things, that the

State presented false and material DNA expert testimony which violated his due process

rights. At trial, DNA analyst Christina Capt testified that Applicant could not be excluded

from the DNA mixture on the trigger of the murder weapon, that all the other co-defendants

were excluded, and that 99.8% of all randomly tested individuals would be excluded from

the profile. The State argued that Applicant was the shooter based on that testimony.

       Pursuant to a request for post-conviction forensic DNA testing, the Texas

Department of Public Safety (DPS) conducted probabilistic genotyping analysis on a DNA

mixture profile recovered from the trigger of the pistol used in the offense. The new DNA

interpretation report states that the mixture on the trigger was from three individuals and

that the new interpretation “indicates support for the proposition that Willie Thomas is

excluded as a possible contributor to the profile.” This directly contradicts the expert’s

testimony at trial.

       Therefore, while the analyst’s testimony was not erroneous under the standards used

at the time of trial, under the current updated DNA interpretation, the analyst’s testimony

is now known to be false. Applicant argues that there is a reasonable likelihood that such

testimony affected the jury, and he would not have been found guilty without that false

testimony.
                                                                            THOMAS — 3

       This Court has stated that “in any habeas claim alleging the use of material false

testimony, this Court must determine (1) whether the testimony was, in fact, false, and, if

so, (2) whether the testimony was material.” Ex parte Weinstein, 421 S.W.3d 656 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2014). To determine whether testimony is false, the proper question is whether

the particular testimony, taken as a whole, gives the jury a false impression. Ex parte

Ghahremani, 332 S.W.3d 470, 478 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). False testimony is material if

there is a reasonable likelihood that the testimony affected Applicant’s conviction or

sentence. Ex parte Chavez, 371 S.W.3d 200, 206-207 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012).

       The trial court finds that the State emphasized the DNA results in its closing

arguments and that the appellate court relied on the DNA results in upholding the

sufficiency of the evidence to support Applicant’s conviction. It finds that the DNA

interpretation was material and false and that Applicant’s due process rights were violated

by the use of such testimony. The State and the trial court agree that Applicant should be

granted relief under this ground.

       This Court has reviewed the record with respect to the allegation presented by

Applicant and finds that the findings and conclusions entered by the trial court are

supported by the record. Relief is granted. Ex parte Ghahremani, 332 S.W.3d 470, 478

(Tex. Crim. App. 2011); Ex parte Chavez, 371 S.W.3d at 206-207.

       The judgment in cause number 1234864R in the 297th District Court of Tarrant

County is set aside, and Applicant is remanded to the custody of the Sheriff of Tarrant
                                                                           THOMAS — 4

County to answer the charges as set out in the indictment. The trial court shall issue any

necessary bench warrant within ten days from the date of this Court’s mandate.

      Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–

Correctional Institutions Division and the Board of Pardons and Paroles.

Delivered: November 8, 2023

Do Not Publish