Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:The applicant seeks relief through habeas corpus from an adjudication of guilt that resulted in the revocation of deferred adjudication and a 10-year sentence of imprisonment in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Correctional Institutions Division. The applicant was adjudicated guilty based entirely upon perjured testimony. HOLDING:Granted. Due process requires that reincarceration occur only after the disclosure of evidence against the defendant. Within this right to disclosure of evidence afforded by due process, the court infers the requirement that revocation may not occur when it is based solely on perjured testimony. Because habeas review is appropriate for denials of fundamental or constitutional rights, the applicant’s claim that his community supervision was revoked solely on perjured evidence, and therefore without due process of law, is cognizable under the habeas jurisdiction of this court. The state argues that the applicant’s claim may not be cognizable because Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 42.12, �(5)(b) states that no appeal may be taken from the trial court’s determination to adjudicate guilt. This prohibition of an appeal from a decision to adjudicate guilt does not, however, prohibit a collateral attack on the determination to adjudicate guilt through habeas corpus because appellate proceedings are different from collateral, post-conviction proceedings. “Code of Criminal Procedure Article 3.01 states that,”All words, phrases and terms used in this Code are to be taken and understood in their usual acceptation in common language, except where specifically defined.’ The Code does not specifically define either appeal or habeas corpus. In Black’s Law Dictionary, appeal is defined as”[a] proceeding undertaken to have a decision reconsidered by bringing it to a higher authority.’ Habeas corpus, in the context of a challenge to a final felony conviction, is a collateral attack on the judgment. A collateral attack is”[a]n attack on a judgment entered in a different proceeding.’ Appeals and habeas corpus are two different types of proceedings. If the legislature meant to foreclose habeas relief from adjudication proceedings, it could have said so explicitly, but it did not. We conclude that the prohibition on direct appeals in Article 42.12, �5(b) is not a bar to habeas relief in the applicant’s case.” The court concludes that the applicant’s community supervision was revoked without due process of law, because it was revoked solely on the basis of perjured testimony. OPINION:Price, J., announced the judgment of the court and delivered an opinion, in which Johnson, Holcomb, and Cochran, JJ., joined. Womack, J., filed a concurring opinion. Hervey, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Keller, PJ, and Keasler, J., joined. Meyers, J., did not participate. CONCURRENCE:Paul Womack, J. “if habeas corpus relief from a judgment of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt will be granted on the basis of recantations, as this court has held, then it must follow that relief from a community-supervision revocation will be granted.” DISSENT:Hervey, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which Keller, PJ., and Keasler, J., joined. “I . . . agree with the Court that applicant is entitled to relief. The Court’s judgment, however, does not grant the relief to which applicant is entitled. The Court’s judgment sets aside the trial court’s judgment revoking applicant’s probation and remands applicant to the custody of Dallas County for further proceedings. This judgment does not order applicant’s immediate release, and it arguably does not set aside applicant’s convictions. The Court’s judgment, therefore, may be ambiguous on whether the State, which agrees that applicant’s probation was revoked based solely on perjured testimony but disagrees that applicant is entitled to relief in this proceeding, may continue to incarcerate applicant on these convictions. I would decide that the Court’s judgment should set aside applicant’s convictions, reinstate his deferred adjudication probation, and order his immediate release.”

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.