Miles, Ex Parte Richard Ray Jr.
359 S.W.3d 647 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2012
Facts
In the early morning hours of May 16, 1994, Deandre Shay Williams and Robert Ray Johnson, Jr. were sitting in their parked car at a Texaco service station in Dallas. A black male, wearing dark shorts, a white tank top, and a floppy hat, approached their car, reached in from the driver's side, and shot both men with a nine-millimeter handgun. Williams was killed, and Johnson sustained severe injuries. The shooter then ran from the scene and got into a white Cadillac, which was driven away. Approximately twenty-five minutes after the shooting, Richard Ray Miles, Jr. (Applicant) was arrested on a nearby street. Earlier that day, Johnson and Williams had been confronted and threatened by a group of black males in a white Cadillac at Redbird Mall. Marcus Thurman witnessed the shooting, described the shooter, and followed the Cadillac, later identifying Applicant in a show-up and photo lineup. Gunshot residue was found on Applicant's right palm, and he provided an alibi corroborated by two witnesses.
Procedural history
Applicant was convicted of murder and attempted murder, and his convictions were affirmed on appeal by the Dallas Court of Appeals. He filed initial applications for writ of habeas corpus arguing a Brady violation, which were denied. Applicant then filed subsequent applications for writ of habeas corpus, claiming actual innocence, unreliable expert testimony on gunshot-residue analysis, and another Brady violation. The trial court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law recommending relief, and after two remands from the Court of Criminal Appeals for further findings, the habeas court again recommended relief.
Issue
The primary legal question is whether Applicant is entitled to habeas corpus relief based on newly discovered evidence supporting claims of a Brady violation and actual innocence, and whether these claims meet the statutory requirements for a subsequent habeas application.
Holding
The court granted habeas corpus relief, setting aside the judgments of conviction for murder and attempted murder. The court found that Applicant had established his actual innocence.
Rule
A subsequent habeas application can be considered if the factual or legal basis for the claim was unavailable previously or if, by a preponderance of the evidence, but for a U.S. Constitution violation, no rational juror could have found the applicant guilty. A Brady violation occurs when the State suppresses favorable and material evidence, regardless of good or bad faith, where materiality means a reasonable probability the outcome would have been different. An actual innocence claim (Herrera-type) requires the applicant to show by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable juror would have convicted him in light of newly discovered or available affirmative evidence of innocence, which was not known and could not have been known with due diligence.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.