Ex Parte Manuel Velez
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, No. WR-79,360-01 (October
23, 2013)
Per Curiam
The Court of Criminal Appeals granted habeas relief to Carrington Coleman client Manuel Velez, setting aside his 2008 conviction and remanding the case to Cameron County for a new trial. The Court recognized that Manuel Velez’s original trial counsel “did not make a reasonable investigation into the age of the victim’s injuries or the possibility that someone other than [Mr. Velez] injured the victim, and they did not make a reasonable decision that made investigation unnecessary.” The Court’s ruling provides an opportunity for Mr. Velez’s case to be retried with constitutionally adequate representation.
Mr. Velez was charged with the murder of a one-year-old child in 2005. With very little resources, Mr. Velez was provided court-appointed counsel who failed to investigate or challenge the State’s medical evidence, and thus presented little evidence in support of Mr. Velez’s defenses. In October 2008, Mr. Velez was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. The ACLU, counsel on direct appeal, successfully obtained a reversal of the death penalty before the Court of Criminal Appeals. Mr. Velez’s habeas corpus application followed, attacking the validity of Mr. Velez’s conviction.
The Court of Criminal Appeals is generally deferential to factual findings made by the trial court in a habeas proceeding, as long as they are supported by the record. The Court reviewed the testimony presented to the trial court at Mr. Velez’s habeas hearing held in December 2012, including evidence that “some of the victim’s head injuries were or could have been sustained weeks or months before [Mr. Velez] had access to [the child].” The Court further noted evidence that witnesses saw the victim’s mother neglect and abuse the child prior to his death. None of this evidence had been presented to the jury in Mr. Velez’s trial in 2008. The Court accepted the trial court’s findings that “defense counsel failed to conduct an adequate investigation and, as a result, failed to present evidence at trial that supported the defense.” The Court determined that the record supported the trial court’s findings and a new trial was necessary. After five years of fighting his conviction, Mr. Velez will finally have the opportunity to present his defense.
