In re M.P.A.

Summary

The court considers M.P.A.’s habeas claims based on recantations by two witnesses, allegedly false expert testimony concerning the Abel Assessment, and ineffective assistance of counsel. It denies relief on the actual-innocence and ineffective-assistance claims but holds that the State’s expert testimony contributed to M.P.A.’s sentence and orders a new disposition hearing.

Holdings

1. M.P.A. was not entitled to habeas relief on actual-innocence grounds because he did not establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable juror would have convicted him in light of the recantations.
2. M.P.A.'s false-testimony claim was properly before the court notwithstanding his failure to raise it at trial or on direct appeal.
3. Had the State expert testified truthfully about the Abel Assessment's accuracy rate and supporting literature, the trial court would have excluded the testimony because the State would not have established its reliability under Kelly.
4. The false testimony contributed to M.P.A.'s sentence, and M.P.A. was entitled to a new disposition hearing.
5. M.P.A. did not establish ineffective assistance of counsel during the adjudication phase.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the recantations established actual innocence under the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard.
2. Whether M.P.A. could raise a false-testimony claim through habeas proceedings despite not raising the issue earlier.
3. Whether the State expert's false testimony concerning the reliability of the Abel Assessment was inadmissible under the Kelly reliability standard.
4. Whether the false expert testimony contributed to M.P.A.'s sentence and required a new disposition hearing.
5. Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance during the adjudication phase by failing to investigate or challenge evidence concerning whether a sexual assault occurred.

Disposition

remanded