Court Opinion

ID: 9910690
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-18 01:11:18.752506+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:53:50.015728
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
                         OF TEXAS
                                        NO. WR-13,739-06

                    EX PARTE MICHAEL JEROME CLARK, Applicant

                ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
                CAUSE NO. 1366492-B IN THE 177TH DISTRICT COURT
                             FROM HARRIS COUNTY

       Per curiam.

                                           OPINION

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

Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Clark v. State, No. 14-15-00840-CR (Tex.

App. — Houston[14th Dist], Aug. 11, 2016). 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.

       Applicant contends that newly availably scientific evidence entitles him to relief under Texas

Code of Criminal Procedure Article 11.073. Specifically, the results of DNA testing presented at trial

identified Applicant as the sole contributor to a DNA profile obtained from the perpetrator’s cap. But

additional DNA testing, using technology not previously available, was completed in Sept. 2021. It
                                                                                                     2

identifies the DNA profile of an alternative suspect and part of a third DNA profile. Applicant also

asserts that there was a reasonable likelihood that false testimony from a DNA examiner affected the

judgment of the jury. He acknowledges that the earlier DNA reports were correct based on the

science available at the time of trial, but he asserts that intervening scientific developments

demonstrate that those results gave the jury a false impression.

        The trial court concludes that the 2021 DNA report constitutes relevant scientific evidence.

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 11.073(a). The report was not available at the time of

trial. It would have been admissible. If the results had been presented at trial, on a preponderance of

the evidence Applicant would not have been convicted of capital murder. Therefore, Applicant is

entitled to a new trial.

        We agree. Relief is granted. The judgment in cause number 136649201010 in the 177th

District Court of Harris County is set aside, and Applicant is remanded to the custody of the Sheriff

of Harris 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: December 13, 2023
Do not publish