Sylvanus Rene v. Texas

The state habeas trial court, following testimony at an evidentiary hearing, entered detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law recommending that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (TCCA) grant petitioner a new trial on punishment because of perjured testimony and ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The TCCA entered an order denying relief in which it (1) erroneously asserted that the trial court’s order recommending relief was not accompanied by findings of fact and conclusions of law; and (2) independently concluded that “the record does not support the trial court’s recommendation to grant relief.” The district clerk inadvertently had separated the findings and conclusions from the order recommending relief by 40 pages in the electronic record sent to the TCCA. Petitioner filed a suggestion for reconsideration in view of the TCCA’s failure to consider the findings and conclusions. In response, the TCCA revised its order and stated without explanation that, upon reconsideration, the record does not support the trial court’s recommendation to grant relief. The question presented is: Does it violate procedural due process for an appellate court, in denying relief on federal constitutional claims in a state habeas corpus proceeding, to reject without explanation a trial court’s favorable, dispositive findings of fact that were based on witness credibility determinations following an evidentiary hearing?