Ex parte Robbins
Citation | 478 S.W.3d 678 |
Decision Date | 26 November 2014 |
Docket Number | NO. WR–73,484–02,WR–73,484–02 |
Parties | Ex Parte Neal Hampton Robbins, Applicant |
Court | Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas |
Brian W. Wice, Attorney at Law, Houston, TX, for Applicant.
William J. Delmore III, Assistant District Attorney, Conroe, TX, Lisa C. McMinn, State's Attorney, Austin, TX, for the State.
The applicant, Neal Hampton Robbins, was convicted in 1999 of the capital murder of his girlfriend's seventeen-month-old daughter, Tristen Rivet. The State did not seek the death penalty, and upon conviction the applicant was sentenced to life in prison. We affirmed the judgment and sentence on direct appeal.1
The applicant filed his first application for a writ of habeas corpus in 2011, alleging actual innocence based on new evidence and due process claims for the use of false testimony, which we denied.2
The applicant filed this subsequent application for a writ of habeas corpus on September 3, 2013, pursuant to article 11.073 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Article 11.073 was passed during the 2013 legislative session and became effective on September 1, 2013. There are no factual changes in the applicant's case since the filing of his first application. In both applications he argued he was entitled to a new trial because the medical examiner who testified for the prosecution, Dr. Patricia Moore, could no longer stand by her trial testimony regarding the cause of death. The only difference between the two applications is the enactment of the new law upon which the applicant now relies. Based on article 11.073, the applicant argues he is entitled to relief because scientific evidence relied on by the State at trial has been contradicted by relevant scientific evidence that was unavailable at trial, and if it had been presented at trial he would not have been convicted.
We shall grant the applicant's request for relief.
The relevant facts and procedural background have not changed since the applicant's first application for habeas corpus was denied by this Court in 2011. As we summarized previously, the facts as developed at trial and during original habeas proceedings are as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial- J & D Towing, LLC v. Am. Alt. Ins. Corp.
-
Patterson v. State
...(Tex. App.—San Antonio July 3, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication).42 Patterson cites to Ex Parte Robbins , 478 S.W.3d 678, 691–92 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), which we find to be distinguishable in applied purpose and fact. In Ex Parte Robbins , the court granted habeas re......
-
Ex parte Chaney
...process of generating hypotheses and testing them through experimentation, publication, and republication.’ " Ex parte Robbins , 478 S.W.3d 678, 691 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). "Scientific knowledge" includes a change in the body of science (e.g., the field has been discredited or evolved) and ......
-
State v. Hancock
...395 F.3d 577, 588-97 (6th Cir. 2005) ; Ex Parte Henderson , 384 S.W.3d 833, 833-34 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) ; and Ex Parte Robbins , 478 S.W.3d 678, 685, 692 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), the respective defendants were entitled to the relief requested, in part, because the prosecution's expert(s) l......
-
Post-Trial Issues
...that he or she would not have been convicted if the newly available scientific evidence had been presented at trial. Ex Parte Robbins, 478 S.W.3d 678, 690 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015). An applicant also must establish that the facts he alleges are at least minimally sufficient to bring him within......
-
Post-Trial Issues
...that he or she would not have been convicted if the newly available scientific evidence had been presented at trial. Ex Parte Robbins, 478 S.W.3d 678, 690 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015). An applicant also must establish that the facts he alleges are at least minimally sufficient to bring him within......
-
Post-Trial Issues
...that he or she would not have been convicted if the newly available scientific evidence had been presented at trial. Ex Parte Robbins, 478 S.W.3d 678, 690 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015). An applicant also must establish that the facts he alleges are at least minimally sufficient to bring him within......
-
Post-Trial Issues
...that he or she would not have been convicted if the newly available scientific evidence had been presented at trial. Ex Parte Robbins, 478 S.W.3d 678, 690 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015). An applicant also must establish that the facts he alleges are at least minimally sufficient to bring him within......