# State Ex Rel. Holmes v. Honorable Court of Appeals for the Third District

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · April 20, 1994 · 885 S.W.2d 389

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9763758

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of Texas Ex Rel. John B. HOLMES, Jr., District Attorney, Relator, v. the HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS FOR the THIRD DISTRICT, Respondent; TEXAS BOARD OF PARDONS AND PAROLES, Et Al., Relator, v. the HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS FOR the THIRD DISTRICT, Respondent
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** April 20, 1994
- **Citations:** 885 S.W.2d 389; 1994 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 52; 1994 WL 135476
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Miller
- **Judges:** Baird, Overstreet, Campbell, White, Meyers, Clinton, Miller
- **Cited by:** 215 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9763758

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that “in order to be entitled to relief on a claim of factual innocence the applicant must show that based on the newly discovered evidence and the entire record before the jury that convicted him, no rational trier of fact could find proof of guilt beyond a reasonable…
- holding that the trial court was without jurisdiction to issue an injunction, “[n]otwithstanding that respondent held [it] was necessary to protect its jurisdiction over the appeal of Graham’s civil case”
- holding that any order by another state court purporting to stay an execution unlawfully circumvents the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Criminal Appeals in a death-penalty conviction
- stating that actual innocence claims for inmates sentenced to death are cognizable in a habeas corpus application

## Opinion text

MILLER, J.,
dissents. Judge CAMPBELL, in his concurring opinion’s discussion of “The Clemency Process,” appeal’s to mirror my earlier comments in my Dissent to the Order Filing and Setting Relator’s Mandamus Actions, footnote 2. To that extent I agree with his “observations.” Nevertheless, Judge MEYERS has the proper view of the correct disposition of this matter, and thus I join his opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9763758. Public record. Not legal advice.