Luera, Michael Keith Jr.
This text of Luera, Michael Keith Jr. (Luera, Michael Keith Jr.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NO. WR-93,813-01
EX PARTE MICHAEL KEITH LUERA, JR., Applicant
ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS CAUSE NO. A-13,435-A IN THE 173RD DISTRICT COURT FROM HENDERSON COUNTY
Per curiam. YEARY , J. filed a concurring opinion, which SLAUGHTER , J. joined.
ORDER
Applicant was convicted of indecency with a child - sexual contact and sentenced to four
years’ imprisonment. The Twelfth Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Luera v. State, No.
12-09-00101-CR (Tex. App. —Tyler, Feb. 26, 2010). Applicant filed this application for a writ of
habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and the district clerk forwarded it to this Court. See TEX .
CODE CRIM . PROC. art. 11.07.
Applicant contends that he has new evidence of his actual innocence, based on a recantation
from the complainant, and that his plea was involuntary because he was not admonished regarding
his lifetime requirement to register as a sex offender. We believe that in recantation cases such as
this one, before we make the important decision of whether Applicant is entitled to relief, the record 2
should be more fully developed. The trial court shall therefore conduct a live evidentiary hearing
on the matter at which the complainant shall be called to testify. Notice of the hearing and an
opportunity to testify shall be given to those persons who participated in the trial or the investigation.
The trial court shall make findings as to the credibility of the complaining witness’
recantation. The court shall make further findings of fact regarding the circumstances surrounding
the complainant’s recantation, including the delay between the trial and the recantation. The trial
court shall make findings as to whether Applicant could have presented the information contained
in the recanting witness’ affidavit prior to his guilty plea. The trial court shall specifically weigh the
evidence of Applicant’s guilt against the new evidence of innocence. See Ex parte Tuley, 109
S.W.3d 388, 393 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). The trial court shall enter findings of fact as to the
credibility of each witness and as to whether Applicant is entitled to relief. The trial court shall also
make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether Applicant’s plea was involuntary. The
trial court may make any other findings and conclusions that it deems appropriate in response to
Applicant’s claims.
It appears that Applicant is not represented by habeas counsel. The trial court, within 30 days
of the date of this order, shall determine whether Applicant is indigent. If Applicant is indigent and
wishes to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an attorney to represent Applicant
at the evidentiary hearing. TEX . CODE CRIM . PROC. art. 26.04.
This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fact issues. The
trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law within ninety days from the date of this
order. The district clerk shall then immediately forward to this Court the trial court’s findings and
conclusions and the record developed on remand, including, among other things, affidavits, motions, 3
objections, proposed findings and conclusions, orders, and transcripts from hearings and depositions.
See TEX . R. APP . P. 73.4(b)(4). Any extensions of time must be requested by the trial court and
obtained from this Court.
Filed: June 8, 2022 Do not publish
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Luera, Michael Keith Jr., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/luera-michael-keith-jr-texcrimapp-2022.