IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
NO. WR-82,467-01
EX PARTE STANLEY ORSON MOZEE, Applicant
ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
CAUSE NO. W99-02631-R(A) IN THE 265TH DISTRICT COURT
FROM DALLAS COUNTY
Per curiam.
ORDER
Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the
clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte
Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of capital murder
and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Fifth Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Mozee v.
State, No. 05-00-01260-CR (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 14, 2001) (not designated for publication).
This Court received Applicant’s Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus filed in the trial
court on September 11, 2014. Applicant claimed, among other things, that the State violated Brady
v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). He argued that the State did not disclose agreements it had made
2
with jailhouse informants regarding the resolution of pending charges or the reduction of a sentence
in exchange for these informants’ testimony at his trial. The trial court and the State agreed that
Applicant was entitled to relief under Brady. This Court remanded the habeas application to the trial
court to provide the trial prosecutor an opportunity to respond to Applicant’s Brady claim.
On October 26 and 27, 2015, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing at which the trial
prosecutor testified. Additional evidence was also presented. The district clerk has not yet
supplemented the habeas record with the reporter’s transcription of the hearings. This Court has only
received a supplement containing the trial court’s findings of fact, which conclude that there was no
Brady violation. Both Applicant and the State object to the findings, arguing that the findings are not
supported by the habeas record.
The State also indicates that it has discovered additional exculpatory evidence which it
believes further supports Applicant’s claims and impeaches the trial prosecutor’s habeas testimony.
Applicant and the State also argue that a recent case from the United States Supreme Court, Wearry
v. Cain, 577 U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 1002 (2016), “provides guidance to the courts on issues concerning
suppression of exculpatory evidence related to informants,” and ask that the habeas application be
remanded for further consideration of Applicant’s Brady claim in light of the additional evidence
and the Wearry opinion.
Additionally, the parties indicate that Applicant filed an Amended Application for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus in the trial court on November 4, 2015, and a Second Amended Application for a
Writ of Habeas Corpus on January 15, 2016, along with attached exhibits. It appears that Applicant
has raised additional claims, but the District Clerk has not supplemented the habeas record with any
additional filings.
3
This Court remands the habeas application to the trial court. The trial court shall determine
whether there have been additional habeas filings, and it shall determine what factual issues remain
controverted, including, but not limited to, whether there are unresolved Brady issues, unresolved
false testimony issues, and unresolved ineffective assistance of trial counsel issues. The trial court
shall make additional findings of fact and conclusions of law to resolve any controverted issues. The
trial court shall also make any other supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law that it
deems relevant and appropriate to the disposition of Applicant’s claims for habeas corpus relief.1
Also, if there have been additional habeas filings, the trial court shall order the district clerk
to supplement the habeas record with those filings and their exhibits. If there are no such additional
habeas filings, then the trial court shall inform this Court. The trial court shall also order the district
clerk to supplement the habeas record with a copy of the transcription from the habeas hearing
already conducted.
This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fact issues. The
issues shall be resolved within 90 days of this order. A supplemental transcript containing all
affidavits and interrogatories or the transcription of the court reporter’s notes from any hearing or
deposition, along with the trial court’s supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law, shall
be forwarded to this Court within 120 days of the date of this order. Any extensions of time shall
be obtained from this Court.
Filed: September 14, 2016
Do not publish
1
To resolve the controverted issues, the trial court may use any means set out in T EX . C O D E C RIM . P RO C . art.
11.07, § 3(d). It appears that Applicant continues to be represented by habeas counsel. If the trial court determines he
is not represented by counsel and elects to hold a hearing, it shall then 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 hearing. T EX . C O DE C RIM . P RO C . art. 26.04.