Ex parte Holloway

Decision Date30 October 2013
Docket NumberNo. WR–78955–01.,WR–78955–01.
Citation413 S.W.3d 95
PartiesEx Parte Danny Lee HOLLOWAY, II, Applicant.
CourtTexas Court of Criminal Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

John W. Stickels, Stickels & Associates, P.C., Arlington, TX, for Appellant.

Gary D. Young, District Attorney Lamar County, Paris, TX, Lisa C. McMinn, State's Attorney, Austin, TX, for the State.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex.Crim.App.1967). Applicant was charged with murder but convicted by a jury of the lesser included offense of manslaughter. He was sentenced to twenty years' imprisonment. The Sixth Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Holloway v. State, No. 06–02–00216–CR, 2003 WL 22491053 (Tex.App.-Texarkana, Nov. 5, 2003, pet. ref'd ).

In 2006, Applicant moved for post-conviction DNA testing under Chapter 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. In 2009, the trial court granted the motion and ordered the DNA testing requested by Applicant. The subject of the testing was a knife that was found in Applicant's car after the offense. Several witnesses testified at Applicant's trial that the knife looked like the knife wielded by Applicant during the fight that led to the death of the victim, Ashley Lee. Although the knife had tested presumptively positive for blood, no DNA testing had been performed on the knife at the time of Applicant's trial.

The results of the DNA testing performed on two stains from the knife indicated that Ashley Lee was excluded as a possible source of, or contributor to, the DNA profile obtained from the knife. A hearing was conducted on the post-conviction DNA testing results, at which Applicant argued that he was entitled to a new trial because the State had referred to the knife as the weapon used by Applicant and relied on the knife to prove the affirmative deadly-weapon allegation.

On December 3, 2012, Applicant filed this application for writ of habeas corpus in the trial court. This Court received the application on January 14, 2013. Applicant originally raised five grounds for review in his application, including prosecutorial misconduct in failing to disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense, ineffective assistance of trial counsel, and actual innocence. On February 13, 2013, this Court remanded the matter to the trial court to obtain findings and affidavits addressing Applicant's claims.

On April 10, 2013, the trial court conducted a habeas hearing, at which Applicant indicated that he intended to pursue only the actual-innocence claim. After the habeas hearing, the trial court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law, recommending that relief be granted on the basis of actual innocence.

However, this Court has reviewed the transcripts of the trial, the post-conviction DNA hearing and the habeas hearing, and concludes that the trial court's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation to grant relief are not supported by the record.

An applicant for habeas relief based on a claim of actual innocence must demonstrate that the newly discovered evidence, if true, creates a doubt as to the correctness of the verdict sufficient to undermine confidence in the verdict and that it is probable that the verdict would be different on retrial. Ex parte Elizondo, 947 S.W.2d 202, 206 (Tex.Crim.App.1996). In the context of a free-standing claim of actual innocence, an applicant can establish that it is “probable” that the verdict would be different on retrial only if he can “show by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable juror would have convicted him in light of the new evidence.” Id., at 209. In this case, the trial court finds that the exclusion of the victim, Ashley Lee, as a possible source of, or contributor to, the DNA profile found on the knife taken from Applicant's car proves that the knife was not the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Ex parte Fournier
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • October 28, 2015
    ...recantation); Ex parte Tuley, 109 S.W.3d 388, 395–97 (Tex.Crim.App.2002) (victim recantation).29 See, e.g., Ex parte Holloway, 413 S.W.3d 95, 96–97 (Tex.Crim.App.2013) (DNA testing on weapon excluded applicant).30 See, e.g., Ex parte Jimenez, 364 S.W.3d 866, 874 (Tex.Crim.App.2012) (four ex......
  • State v. Esparza
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • October 30, 2013
  • Ex parte Vasquez
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • July 28, 2016
    ...time of his trial, plea, or post-trial motions, such as a motion for new trial.Brown , 205 S.W.3d at 545 ; see also Ex parte Holloway , 413 S.W.3d 95, 97 (Tex.Crim.App.2013) (“An applicant for habeas relief based on a claim of actual innocence must demonstrate that the newly discovered evid......
  • Whitfield v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • May 7, 2014
    ...after our holding that denied review of his 64.04 hearing findings, has already been addressed by this Court. See Ex parte Holloway, 413 S.W.3d 95 (Tex.Cr.App.2013). 1. Although it is also appropriate to consider a seventh matter, any administrative construction of the statute, I exclude th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 books & journal articles
  • Post-Trial Issues
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Criminal Lawyer's Handbook. Volume 2 - 2015 Contents
    • August 17, 2015
    ...to undermine confidence in the verdict and that it is probable that the verdict would be different on retrial. Ex parte Holloway, 413 S.W.3d 95, 97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013), citing Ex parte Elizondo, 947 S.W.2d 202, 206 (Tex.Crim.App.1996). In order for a defendant to be entitled to a new tri......
  • Post-Trial Issues
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Criminal Lawyer's Handbook. Volume 2 - 2017 Contents
    • August 17, 2017
    ...to undermine confidence in the verdict and that it is probable that the verdict would be different on retrial. Ex parte Holloway, 413 S.W.3d 95, 97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013), citing Ex parte Elizondo, 947 S.W.2d 202, 206 (Tex.Crim.App.1996). In order for a defendant to be entitled to a new tri......
  • Post-Trial Issues
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Criminal Lawyer's Handbook. Volume 2 - 2019 Contents
    • August 16, 2019
    ...to undermine confidence in the verdict and that it is probable that the verdict would be different on retrial. Ex parte Holloway, 413 S.W.3d 95, 97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013), citing Ex parte Elizondo, 947 S.W.2d 202, 206 (Tex.Crim.App.1996). In order for a defendant to be entitled to a new tri......
  • Post-Trial Issues
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Criminal Lawyer's Handbook. Volume 2 - 2016 Contents
    • August 17, 2016
    ...to undermine confidence in the verdict and that it is probable that the verdict would be different on retrial. Ex parte Holloway, 413 S.W.3d 95, 97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013), citing Ex parte Elizondo, 947 S.W.2d 202, 206 (Tex.Crim.App.1996). In order for a defendant to be entitled to a new tri......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT