Ex parte Holloway, II (Original)
Annotate this Case
Applicant was charged with murder, but convicted by a jury of the lesser included offense of manslaughter. He was sentenced to twenty years' imprisonment. The Sixth Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. In 2006, Applicant moved for post-conviction DNA testing. In 2009, the trial court granted the motion and ordered the test. Although a knife had tested presumptively positive for blood, no DNA testing had been performed on the knife at the time of Applicant's trial. The results of the DNA testing performed on two stains from the knife indicated that a third party was excluded as a possible source of, or contributor to, the DNA profile obtained from the knife. A hearing was conducted on the post-conviction DNA testing results, at which Applicant argued that he was entitled to a new trial because the State had referred to the knife as the weapon used by Applicant and relied on the knife to prove its case against Applicant. Applicant then filed this application for writ of habeas corpus, raising five grounds for review in his application, including prosecutorial misconduct in failing to disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense, ineffective assistance of trial counsel, and actual innocence. The Supreme Court remanded the matter to the trial court to obtain findings and affidavits addressing Applicant's claims. After the habeas hearing, the trial court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law, recommending that relief be granted on the basis of actual innocence. However, after its review, the Supreme Court found the trial court’s recommendation was not supported by the record. Furthermore, even if, as Applicant argued, the knife was "the piece of tangible evidence" upon which the jury relied to convict him, there was ample "intangible" evidence that Applicant stabbed several people with a knife on the night of the offense, including the testimony of people who saw Applicant stab people, and people who were themselves stabbed. Therefore, the Supreme Court concluded the DNA test results did not show by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable juror would have convicted him in light of the new evidence. Accordingly, habeas relief was denied.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.