Ex Parte Brown
Citation | 205 S.W.3d 538 |
Decision Date | 01 November 2006 |
Docket Number | No. AP-75377.,AP-75377. |
Parties | Ex Parte Curtis Eugene BROWN, Applicant. |
Court | Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas |
Albert A. Pena, III, Corpus Christi, for Appellant.
Robert C. Lassman, Asst. District atty., Cuero, Matthew Paul, State's Atty., Austin, for State.
Applicant pled guilty to aggravated sexual assault of a child, and the trial court placed him on community supervision. The trial court later adjudicated his guilt and sentenced him to prison. Applicant then filed a motion for new trial claiming that newly discovered evidence proved that he was actually innocent of the original offense because the child, at that time, said that she had lied about the sexual assault. The trial judge interviewed the child in camera, but he denied the motion for new trial because he did not believe her recantation. Applicant filed this writ application two years later and made the same claim—that the child's recantation was newly discovered evidence that proves his innocence. The habeas judge entered findings of fact and recommended that we grant relief. We hold that this evidence is not newly discovered, and, in any event, applicant failed to prove his innocence. We therefore deny relief.
On July 26, 1998, when C.B. was seven or eight years old, she told her mother, Valerie, that applicant, C.B.'s great-uncle, had sexually molested her. C.B. used hand motions to show Valerie what applicant did to her. Jacqueline, Valerie's sister, was present when C.B. described the sexual abuse to her mother. Valerie, who stated that "I believe anything my daughter said," was angry when C.B. told her about the incident. In fact, she testified that she and did not even "finish listening to the whole story." When both Valerie and Jacqueline confronted him, applicant said "he hadn't done that."
Someone anonymously called Child Protective Services, which investigated the allegation. Valerie said that she did not call the police because "families stick together." She later testified before the grand jury that she believed C.B.'s accusations because, in her mind, no child is going to make up something like that. At the time C.B. told her of the sexual abuse, as well as at the time of her grand jury testimony, Valerie believed her daughter and knew of no reason why C.B. would make up a story. Valerie also told the grand jury that applicant had molested her when she was a child.
On March 21, 2000, applicant pled guilty to aggravated sexual assault of a child and was placed on ten years' community supervision. The State filed a motion to adjudicate guilt in November of 2001, alleging a new DWI offense as well as several technical violations. The trial court adjudicated guilt and sentenced applicant to twelve years' imprisonment on February 27, 2002. Applicant timely filed a motion for new trial based on "newly discovered evidence" that he was not guilty of sexually molesting C.B. He attached a recantation affidavit signed by C.B.1 and four other affidavits signed by (1) himself, (2) Valerie,2 (3) Jacqueline,3 (4) and C.B.'s great-grandmother. C.B.'s and Valerie's affidavits said that C.B. had lied when she stated that applicant had sexually molested her. At the hearing on the motion for new trial, the parties agreed that the trial judge could interview C.B. in chambers about her recantation. After that interview, the trial judge stated, "I do not believe the recantation of the child," and he denied the motion for new trial.
After two more years, applicant filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus, making the same claim of actual innocence and attaching the same affidavits. We remanded the case to the trial court to conduct a live evidentiary hearing.4 At the habeas hearing, Valerie testified that C.B. had lied about the sexual assault. She said that C.B. was mad at applicant "because he made her get off the couch and put her on the floor." Valerie testified that, about two years after this couch incident, C.B came to her, crying and saying that "she got Uncle Curt in trouble." This recantation happened shortly before the hearing on the motion for new trial.
During the habeas hearing, the State questioned Valerie about two statements she now claimed were lies. The first was her grand jury testimony that applicant had molested Valerie when she was young. Valerie testified that she said this because Valerie also told the grand jury that applicant had admitted to his mother (Valerie's grandmother) that he had "a problem with molesting children." Valerie explained that she just made up some of her grand jury testimony:
Valerie also testified at the habeas hearing that she did not remember when C.B. actually told her that she had lied about applicant sexually assaulting her.5
C.B., who was in the ninth grade at the time of the habeas hearing, was equivocal about whether she had testified to the grand jury. She did remember telling her mother that applicant had molested her. She did not know why she would make up a "vicious story" about her uncle. The State asked C.B. about the conversation she had with the trial judge in his chambers almost four years earlier:
C.B. then stated that it was hard for her to remember everything about the alleged offense because it was seven years after that event. The State then questioned her about one possible motive for the recantation—pressure from her family. C.B. responded that she did not know if her family talked very much about applicant being in prison. She said that her great-grandmother, applicant's mother, had never told her that applicant was in prison or that he was in prison because of her.
Applicant testified that on the night of the incident he went to the Cowboy Lounge and "had a few beers." He decided to stay at his mother's house to avoid getting on the highway. When he got to his mother's house, applicant noticed that C.B. was sleeping on the love seat, approximately four or five other children were sleeping on pallets on the floor, and two adults were on the couch. Applicant testified that there were about fifteen people in his mother's house that night. Applicant said that he picked C.B. up and put her on the floor. Then he went into his father's room, got a blanket, and slept on the love seat. He didn't know if she ever woke up. Applicant said that he pled guilty to sexually assaulting C.B. because "I have a nephew that's been sent to prison with a similar case, and my dad told me that if I didn't have a decent lawyer, it was probably going to happen to me too."
David Guy, a deputy sheriff with specialized training in interviewing child sex-abuse victims, testified that he interviewed C.B. on August 8, 1998. After establishing rapport, Deputy Guy asked C.B. to describe the incident with applicant. Nothing she said raised a "red flag" in the sense that her statements were not accurate. He testified,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Moore v. Thaler
...discovered evidence that would prove his innocence." Ex parte Moore, Nos. 11,484-03 & 11,484-04 at 51, ¶ 2 (citing Ex parte Brown, 205 S.W.3d 538, 545 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006)). The state habeas corpus court found further that Moore "fail[ed] to allege sufficient facts which, if true, would s......
-
Lucio v. Lumpkin
...the state procedural bar on re-raising claims in state habeas after raising them on direct appeal. See, e.g. , Ex parte Brown , 205 S.W.3d 538, 546 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) ("[H]abeas relief is not available to one who has already litigated his claim at trial, in post-trial motions, or on dir......
-
Garza v. State
...24, 2012) (not designated for publication). 3.Id. at 2 n. 1. 4.Garza, No. 04–11–00891–CR, slip op. at 4 n. 3. 5.See Ex parte Brown, 205 S.W.3d 538, 546 (Tex.Crim.App.2006) (quoting Ex parte Torres, 943 S.W.2d 469, 475 (Tex.Crim.App.1997) (claim that was raised on direct appeal may be raised......
-
People v. Barnslater
...guilty plea was a false declaration of guilt, he should not pass through the actual innocence gateway").2 But see Ex parte Brown, 205 S.W.3d 538, 544 n. 8 (Tex.Crim.App.2006) (holding "claims of actual innocence based upon newly discovered evidence are cognizable on post-conviction writs of......
-
Post-Trial Issues
...intertwined with constitutional error that renders a person’s conviction constitutionally invalid. Ex parte Miles, citing Ex parte Brown, 205 S.W.3d 538, 544–45 (Tex. Crim. App.2006). Where an applicant raises an actual innocence claim, he has the burden to prove by clear and convincing evi......
-
Post-Trial Issues
...intertwined with constitutional error that renders a person’s conviction constitutionally invalid. Ex parte Miles, citing Ex parte Brown, 205 S.W.3d 538, 544–45 (Tex. Crim. App.2006). Where an applicant raises an actual innocence claim, he has the burden to prove by clear and convincing evi......
-
Post-Trial Issues
...intertwined with constitutional error that renders a person’s conviction constitutionally invalid. Ex parte Miles, citing Ex parte Brown, 205 S.W.3d 538, 544–45 (Tex. Crim. App.2006). Where an applicant raises an actual innocence claim, he has the burden to prove by clear and POST-TRIAL ISS......
-
Post-Trial Issues
...person’s conviction constitutionally invalid. Ex §21:74 T EXAS C RIMINAL L AWYER ’ S H ANDBOOK 21-20 parte Miles, citing Ex parte Brown, 205 S.W.3d 538, 544–45 (Tex. Crim. App.2006). Where an applicant raises an actual innocence claim, he has the burden to prove by clear and convincing evid......