NO. 10-0859 - Supreme Court of Texas

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Kelly v. State, 824 S.W.2d 568 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992)............................................................... 11 Santana v. Texas, 397 U.S. 596 (1970) ............................................................................................... 10 State v. Central Expressway Sign Assocsiates, 302 S.W.3d 866 (Tex. 2009) ............................................................................ 10, 14 Timberwalk Apartments, Partners, Inc. v. Cain, 972 S.W.2d 749 (Tex. 1998) .................................................................................. 10 Volkswagen of America, Inc. v. Ramirez, 159 S.W.3d 897 (Tex. 2004) .................................................................................. 12 Whirlpool Corp. v. Camacho, 298 S.W.3d 631 (Tex. 2009) ................................................................ 11, 12, 13, 14 STATUTES TEX. FAM. CODE § 56.01(a)..........................................................................................ix, 10 TEX. GOV. CODE § 22.001(a)(6)......................................................................................... ix OTHER AUTHORITIES 20/20 Texas Girl Says Abuse Claims Were Coerced by Mom (ABC television broadcast Jan. 6, 2006) ............................................................................................. 8 Gene G. Abel, Visual Reaction Time and Plethysmography as Measures of Sexual Interest in Child Molesters, 10 SEXUAL ABUSE: J. RES. & TREATMENT 81, 91 (No. 2, 1998)...................................................................................................... 12 Gillian Smith & Lane Fischer, Assessment of Juvenile Sex Offenders: Reliability and Validity of the Abel Assessment for Interest in Paraphilias, 11 SEXUAL ABUSE: J. RES. & TREATMENT 207, 208 (No. 3, 1999).......................................... 12 John W. Strong, Language and Logic in Expert Testimony: Limiting Expert Testimony by Restrictions of Function, Reliability, and Form, 71 OR. L. REV. 349, 361 n.81 (1992) ..................................................................................... 15 Jordan Smith, Criminally Innocent: How Can You Be Exonerated of a Crime that Never Happened?, THE AUSTIN CHRONICLE, Nov. 5, 2010, at 26 .......................... 8 TEX. R. EVID. 702.............................................................................................................. 11 v
STATEMENT OF THE CASE Nature of the case: Trial court: Trial court’s disposition: Court of appeals: This is an appeal from a denial of habeas corpus. The petitioner, M.P.A., was adjudicated delinquent as a juvenile in October 1999 and received a 20 year determinate sentence. The Third Court of Appeals affirmed his adjudication and disposition. In re M.P.A., No. 03-00-00211-CV, 2000 WL 1759444 (Tex. App.—Austin Nov. 30, 2000, no pet.) (mem. op.). In November 2000, M.P.A. filed a bill of review which was denied in August 2001. The Third Court of Appeals also affirmed this decision in December 2002. In re M.P.A., No. 03-02-00068-CV, 2002 WL 31833562 (Tex. App.—Austin Dec. 19, 2002, pet. denied) (mem. op.). This Court denied review in that case on June 5, 2003. 46 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 762 (June 5, 2003). M.P.A. filed this, his first 1 writ of habeas corpus, in March 2007 in Bell County district court, asserting actual innocence and ineffective assistance of counsel. And, based on new evidence regarding the State’s expert witness’s false testimony, he challenged his sentence, arguing that the basis for the expert’s opinions did not satisfy this Court’s reliability standards set in Robinson, and thus his testimony should not have been admitted, and that this error directly contributed to his sentence. 169th District Court of Bell County, the Honorable Gordon G. Adams, Judge Presiding, Cause No. 222,074C. Following a bench trial, the trial court entered an order denying habeas relief on January 31, 2008, concluding that M.P.A. had not satisfied his burden of proof on his actual innocence, ineffective assistance of counsel, or improper sentence claims. The Third Court of Appeals rendered its decision on July 14, 2010. The panel was comprised of Justices 1 M.P.A. did file an earlier habeas petition; however, it was abandoned based on the pendency of his Bill of Review appeal. See In re M.P.A., No. 03-02-00068-CV, 2002 WL 31833562, at *2 (Tex. App.—Austin Dec. 19, 2002, pet. denied) (mem. op.). vi
Page 1 and 2: NO. 10-0859 _______________________
Page 3 and 4: TABLE OF CONTENTS Identity of Parti
Page 5: INDEX OF AUTHORITIES CASES Page(s)
Page 9 and 10: STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION The Court
Page 11 and 12: STATEMENT OF FACTS I. Background: A
Page 13 and 14: home with their father.”). L.K.A.
Page 15 and 16: Willoughby then testified about the
Page 17 and 18: IV. Willoughby’s false testimony
Page 19 and 20: While media attention does not just
Page 21 and 22: Willoughby testified as an expert,
Page 23 and 24: Shockingly, the authors of these st
Page 25 and 26: elied heavily on Willoughby’s tes
Page 27 and 28: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify th
Page 29 and 30: TAB 1
Page 31 and 32: TAB 2
Page 33 and 34: M.P.A.
Page 36: S.A. A.A. J.W.A. M.P.A.
Page 39 and 40: Page 1 Not Reported in S.W.3d, 2010
Page 57 and 58:
Page 19 Not Reported in S.W.3d, 201
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 69 and 70:
M.P.A. S.A. A.A.
Page 71 and 72:
TAB 5
Page 73 and 74:
Format Dynamics :: CleanPrint :: ht
Page 75 and 76:
Austin Chronicle: Print an Article
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83:
TAB 7
show all

NO. 10-0859 - Supreme Court of Texas

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?