In the Court of Criminal
Appeals of Texas
══════════
No. WR-94,786-01
══════════
EX PARTE CHRISTOPHER DEWAYNE FLOWERS,
Applicant
═══════════════════════════════════════
On Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
Cause No. 1361743-A in the 232nd District Court
From Harris County
═══════════════════════════════════════
YEARY, J., filed a concurring opinion.
Applicant was convicted of delivery of less than a gram of cocaine,
a state-jail felony, and sentenced pursuant to Section 12.44(a) of the
Penal Code to confinement for ninety days. TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE
§ 481.112(b); TEX. PENAL CODE § 12.44(a). Applicant now challenges his
conviction in this Court through an application for writ of habeas corpus.
TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.071. Applicant alleges that he was denied
due process by the State’s use of false evidence against him, that his plea
FLOWERS – 2
was involuntary, and that he is actually innocent.
Without explicitly saying so, the Court today rightly rejects
Applicant’s claim that he is actually innocent. 1 Instead, relying on the
recommendations of both the State and the convicting court, and this
Court’s opinion in Ex parte Chabot, 300 S.W.3d 768, 772 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2009), as well as on the United States Supreme Court’s opinion in
Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970), the Court grants Applicant
relief on the basis of: (1) his claim that he was denied due process by the
use of false evidence against him; and (2) his claim that his plea was
involuntary. But I cannot join the Court’s conclusion that Applicant’s
plea was involuntary.
Unlike the Court, I see no need to determine whether Applicant’s
plea was involuntary. As I have observed before, “[t]his Court has yet to
definitively say, in a published opinion, whether or not Brady [v.
Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)] applies to a guilty plea scenario” so as to
render the plea involuntary. See Ex parte Yearling, 663 S.W.3d 695, 697
(Tex. Crim. App. 2022) (Yeary, J., dissenting) (citing Ex parte Palmberg,
491 S.W.3d 804, 814 n.18 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016)). It still has not done
so, though purporting (needlessly, and in an unpublished opinion) to
grant relief on that basis today. However, I concur with the Court’s
decision to grant relief on the ground that false evidence was used
against him. I therefore concur, respectfully, but only in the Court’s
judgment.
FILED: June 7, 2023
DO NOT PUBLISH
1 Both the State and the convicting court reject the idea of granting
relief to Applicant on the ground that he is actually innocent.