Sammy Jay Riddle v. Texas

I. Whether the Texas courts denied petitioner due process by rejecting his substantial ineffective assistance of counsel claim without conducting an evidentiary hearing, based on the trial prosecutor’s affidavit, even though the record corroborated petitioner’s and trial counsel’s contradictory affidavits. II. Whether the Texas courts’ refusal to conduct an evidentiary hearing on petitioner’s substantial ineffective assistance of counsel claim conflicts with this Court’s decision in Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ex rel. Herman v. Claudy, 350 U.S. 116, 123 (1956) (“Under the allegations here petitioner is entitled to relief if he can prove his [constitutional claim]. He cannot be denied a hearing merely because the allegations of his petition were contradicted by the prosecuting officers.”). III. Whether due process requires a trial court to admonish a defendant, before accepting a guilty plea, that the plea waives the defendant’s constitutional right to require the prosecution to prove each essential element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ decision concerning this issue conflicts with decisions of other state high courts.