Summary
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted habeas relief to Daniel Villegas, holding that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present evidence of possible alternative perpetrators and evidence supporting a voluntary-confession jury instruction. The court rejected the claim that Villegas had established actual innocence under Schlup v. Delo and Ex parte Elizondo, but set aside his conviction and remanded him to custody to answer the indictment.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Villegas received ineffective assistance of counsel when counsel failed to present evidence of possible alternative perpetrators.
- Whether Villegas received ineffective assistance of counsel when counsel failed to discover and present evidence relevant to the voluntary-confession jury instruction.
- Whether Villegas established actual innocence under the Schlup standard or the Texas standard requiring new facts that unquestionably establish innocence.
- Whether habeas relief should be granted based on the ineffective-assistance claims.
Holdings
- Counsel was ineffective for failing to present evidence of possible alternative perpetrators.
- Counsel was ineffective for failing to discover and present evidence that would have allowed the jury to give effect to the voluntary-confession jury instruction submitted in the case.
- Villegas did not establish a Schlup actual-innocence claim because his ineffective-assistance claims were not procedurally barred as subsequent, making a Schlup innocence claim dependent on those claims improper.
- Villegas failed to show that new facts unquestionably established his innocence.
Key quotations
“In a Schlup actual-innocence claim, evidence demonstrating innocence is a prerequisite the applicant must satisfy to have an otherwise barred constitutional claim considered on the merits.” (at 887)
“However, we agree Applicant has demonstrated that counsel was ineffective for not presenting evidence of possible alternative perpetrators and for not discovering and presenting evidence that would have allowed the jury to give effect to the voluntary confession jury instruction submitted in this case.” (at 887)
Factual background
Villegas was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The habeas record showed that trial counsel failed to present evidence of possible alternative perpetrators and failed to discover and present evidence that could have allowed the jury to give effect to a voluntary-confession instruction. The trial court also found cumulative evidence of innocence, but the Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that Villegas had not satisfied the applicable actual-innocence standard.
Procedural history
Villegas was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, and the Eighth Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. On his article 11.07 habeas application, the trial court held several live hearings and found ineffective assistance of counsel and actual innocence under Schlup v. Delo. The Court of Criminal Appeals agreed that counsel was ineffective but rejected the actual-innocence determination, set aside the judgment, and remanded Villegas to the custody of the El Paso County Sheriff to answer the indictment.
Remand instructions
The judgment in Cause No. 76187 was set aside. Villegas was remanded to the custody of the Sheriff of El Paso County to answer the charges in the indictment, and the trial court was directed to issue any necessary bench warrant within 10 days after the Court of Criminal Appeals' mandate issued.