IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
NOS. WR-61,939-01 and WR-61,939-02
IN RE DAVID DOW AND JEFFREY R. NEWBERRY, Respondents
ON RESPONDENTS’ MOTION FOR REHEARING ON ORDER ON SHOW CAUSE
AND CONTEMPT HEARING FOR UNTIMELY
FILED DOCUMENTS IN APPLICANT PAREDES’S CASE
FROM CAUSE NO. 2000-CR-6067B
IN THE 399th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
BEXAR COUNTY
N EWELL, J., filed a dissenting statement to the denial of Respondents’
Motion for Rehearing.
This Court entered a show cause order for Respondents David Dow and Jeffrey
Newberry to appear before this Court to explain their untimely pleadings in Ex parte
Paredes, No. WR-61,939-01. At the hearing, both respondents appeared without
independent counsel; they did not provide sufficient detail explaining the delay between their
conversation with their client and their subsequent work on his case. Based upon the
information provided, this Court held both respondents in contempt. This Court sanctioned
Respondent Dow by suspending his practice before this Court regarding any new clients for
a period of one year based upon a previous warning from this Court that any further
Dow Dissenting Statement - Page 2
violations of Miscellaneous Rule 11-003 could result in up to a one-year suspension of
practice before this Court. This Court ordered Respondent Newberry to pay a fine in the
amount of $250.00, but probated the fine for one year such that the Court would dismiss the
fine if Respondent Newberry did not violate Rule 11-003 within that period.1
Through his newly retained counsel, Respondent Dow urges this Court to grant
rehearing to reconsider our decision to hold him in contempt, as well as the sanction
imposed, due to its impact upon his representation of existing clients in federal court. I
would grant rehearing and withdraw this Court’s sanction pending a thorough consideration
of the issues Respondent Dow’s counsel raises in his motion for rehearing. I would also
order an affidavit from Paredes’s original state habeas counsel, Michael Gross, to provide
information regarding his communications with Respondent Dow concerning the post
conviction filings in this case, as well as attorney Gross’s explanation for why his client
affirmatively requested that Gross forgo what Respondent Dow claims was a “compelling”
Wiggins claim. Consequently, I dissent to this Court’s denial of the motion for rehearing.
Filed: February 25, 2015
Publish
1
Respondent Newberry does not appear to take issue with this Court’s order.
Paredes, Miguel Angel
Combined Opinion