Mable, Dorothy Mae

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedNovember 13, 2024
DocketWR-95,834-01
StatusPublished

This text of Mable, Dorothy Mae (Mable, Dorothy Mae) 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.

Bluebook
Mable, Dorothy Mae, (Tex. 2024).

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NO. WR-95,834-01

EX PARTE DOROTHY MAE MABLE, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS CAUSE NO. 1403772-A IN THE 351ST DISTRICT COURT FROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

OPINION

Applicant pleaded guilty to delivery of cocaine, less than one gram, and was sentenced to six

months of incarceration in the state jail. Through habeas counsel, 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’s sentence has discharged, but she pleads

collateral consequences, so this Court may consider the habeas application. See Ex parte

Harrington, 310 S.W.3d 452, 457 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010).

Applicant asserts that Gerald Goines, the former Houston police officer who arrested her,

provided false evidence, and she alleges that her guilty plea was involuntary. The trial court finds, with the State’s agreement, that Applicant has established a presumption of falsity that is unrebutted.

See Ex parte Mathews, 638 S.W.3d 685 (Tex. Crim. App. 2022); Ex parte Coty, 418 S.W.3d 597

(Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Also with the State’s agreement, the trial court finds that Applicant’s guilty

plea was involuntary due to the prosecution’s non-disclosure of Goines’s pattern of falsifying

evidence in other cases during the same period. See Ex parte Barnaby, 475 S.W.3d 316 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2015).

The trial court adopted the parties’ proposed agreed findings. The trial court recommends

granting habeas relief. The record supports the findings and recommendation. Relief is granted.

Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970). The judgment in Cause No. 140377201010 in the

351st District Court of Harris County is set aside. Applicant shall answer the charges as set out in

the complaint. The trial court shall issue any necessary bench warrant within 10 days after the

mandate of this Court issues.

Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–Correctional

Institutions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Delivered: November 13, 2024

Do Not Publish

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Brady v. United States
397 U.S. 742 (Supreme Court, 1970)
Ex Parte Harrington
310 S.W.3d 452 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2010)
Coty, Leroy Edward
418 S.W.3d 597 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2014)
Ex parte Barnaby
475 S.W.3d 316 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Mable, Dorothy Mae, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mable-dorothy-mae-texcrimapp-2024.