Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Rodney James Dilworth, Petitioner v. Texas
Supreme Court briefOct 28, 2025
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
No.
FILED
OCT 2 8 2025
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
RODNEY”JAMES DILWORTH
— PETITIONER
(Your Name)
vs.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
RESPONDENT(S)
ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO
TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
(NAME OF COURT THAT LAST RULED ON MERITS OF YOUR CASE)
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
RODNEY JAMES DILWORTH
(Your Name)
2661 F.M. 2054
(Address)
TENNESSEE COLONY,TEXAS 75884
(City, State, Zip Code)
(903) 928-2211____________
(Phone Number)
QUESTION(S) PRESENTED
1. Was
petitioner
deprived
of
due
process and his right to a
fair trial in a fair tribunal, where the trial judge was in
a
undisclosed sexual relationship with the district attorney,-and
does the Constitution permit such?
LIST OF PARTIES
[x] All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page.
[ ] All parties do not appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. A list of
all parties to the proceeding in the court whose judgment is the subject of this
petition is as follows:
RELATED CASES
EX PARTE RODNEY JAMES DILWORTH
Trial Court No. W296-80697-92-HC6
WR-28,425-12
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED
PAGE NUMBER
CASES
Ex Parte Cox t 482 S.W.3d 112 (Tex.Crim.App. 2016)............... 6
Fort v.
State, 516 P.3d 690 ( Okla . Crim . App .
Glossip v. Oklahoma, 145 S.Ct. 612 (2025)
2022)............... 7
................ 6
2008 Tex.Crim.App.Unpub.LEXIS 853...'.............. 8
Ex
Parte Hood,
Ex
Parte Lewis, 688 S.W.3d 351 ( Tex . Crim . App . 2024).............. 7
In
re Murchinson,
75 s.Ct. 623 (1955)............................ 7
Ex
Parte Sanchez,
710 S.W.3d 715 (Tex.Crim.App. 2025)............7
Shelton v. Nunn,U.S. Dist.LEXLS 201278 (W. D . Okla . 2022).......... 8
Smith
v. Bridges,U.S.Dist.LEXIS 232465(W.D.Okla. 2022)....... 7-8
In re Syed, 696 S.W.3d 121 (Tex.Crim.App.
2024).................. 7
, Turney v. Ohio, 47 S.Ct. 437(1927)................................ 7
STATUTES AND RULES
Supreme Court
Rule 10(b) and (c)................................. 6
Supreme Court
Rule 12.4........
Texas Code of
Criminal Procedure,Article 11.07,§4................6
Texas Code of
Judicial Conduct Cannon2(A)........................ 9
2
OTHER
XIV AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATE CONSTITUTION................... 3
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment below.
OPINIONS BELOW
[ ] For cases from federal courts:
The opinion of the United States court of appeals appears at Appendix
the petition and is
[ ] reported at; or,
[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,
[ ] is unpublished.
The opinion of the United States district court appears at Appendix
the petition and is
[ ] reported at; or,
[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,
[ ] is unpublished.
[ x] For cases from state courts:
The opinion of the highest state court to review the merits appears at
Appendix _h___ to the petition and is
[ ] reported at; or,
[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,
[x] is unpublished.
The opinion of the habeas
__________________ court
appears at Appendix
to the petition and is
[ ] reported at; or,
[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,
[X] is unpublished.
1.
to
to
JURISDICTION
[ ] For cases from federal courts:
The date on which the United States Court of Appeals decided my case
was
[ ] No petition for rehearing was timely filed in my case.
[ ] A timely petition for rehearing was denied by the United States Court of
Appeals on the following date:
, and a copy of the
order denying rehearing appears at Appendix
[ ] An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted
to and including(date) on----------------------- (date)
in Application No.
A
The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1254(1).
[ ] For cases from state courts:
The date on which the highest state court decided my case was 6^4^202^-----A copy of that decision appears at Appendix —£-----
[
A timely petition for rehearing was thereafter denied on the following date:
8/14/2025, and a copy of the order denying rehearing
appears at Appendix _£
[ ] An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted
to and including(date) on----------------- (date) in
Application No.
A
The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1257(a).
Further jurisdiction is invoked under Rule 12.4.
2.
CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED
XIV Amendment to the United states Constitution:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject
to
the
jurisdiction
and
of
the
State
thereof, are citizens of the United States
wherein
they reside. No state shall make or
enforce any law which shall abridge the priviledges or immunities
of citizens of the United States;
any
person
of law; nor
of
life,
liberty,
nor
shall
any
State deprive
or property without due process
deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.
3.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner
was
convicted of attempted murder and unauthorized
vehicle in a single trial. He was sentenced to
use
of
a
motor
99
and
60
years
296-80697-92
in
respectively
the
296th
in
Judicial
Cause Nos.
296-80696-92 and
District
Court of Collin
County, Texas with Honorable Verla Sue Holland, presiding. He was
1992 and his direct appeals were denied
convicted on November 18,
on February 18, 1994.
On January
newly
asserting
in
14,
petitioner
2025,
filed two habeas application
evidence
discovered
that
his trial judge was
a sexual relationship with the duly elected district attorney
and failed to disclose such.(CR.11-56,CR.12-60).
He
also
filed
memorandums
of law to support his applications.
83).
The
state
filed responses to both applications asserting
that
they
should
be
of
fact
2025, the trial court issued findings
conlusions
of
as
subsequent.
(CR.11-104,CR.12-110) Petitioner filed
objections
law
(CR.11-85,
and
dismissed
of
dismissed as subsequent writs.
On February 28,
CR.12-89).
(CR.11-79,CR.12-
on
law recommending that the writs be
to the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions
March
18,
2025.
(SCR.11-16,SCR.12-20)2
also filed motions to take judicial notice.
25). On June
4,
2025,
the
Texas
Court
Petitioner
(SCR3.11-20,SCR -12-
of Criminal Appeals
1. CR.ll refers to the Clerk's Record in WR-28,425-11 and
CR.12 to WR-28,425-12 followed by page numbers.
2. SCR. refers to the Clerk's Supplemental Record.
4.
rejected the state's recommendation to
in
WR-28,425-11
the
court
and
to
identical and were tried together by the same
were
14,
2025.
both
review
in
trial date.
a
2025, petitioner
filed
motions
each
writ. Both motions were denied on
Petitioner
now seek certiorari in this Court
reconsideration
court
subsequent
denied the claim on the merits. Strangely,
trial court judge. On July 16,
August
as
dismissed WR-28,425-12 as subsequent even though both
applications
for
dismiss
in
judgements
in .that they were tried in the same
trial
by the same trial judge on the same
unitary
(CR.11-39,CR.12-46).
5
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION
A. Jurisdiction to hear both cases on the merits.
jurisdiction
has
Court
This
to
hear both cases together on
the merits because W296-80696-92/WR-28,425-11 and W296-80697-92/
tried
WR-28,425-12 were
respect
that petitioner
of
Texas ■ Code- of
the . Texas
‘Criminal.-Appeals ; by extension; wouldunbcessarily mean
likewise
petitioner
that
holding
Articlei11707,§4 in WR-28,425-11,
Criminal .Procedure,
Cpurfc- ,of
In
subsequent' writ -requirements
the
satisfied
together.:
satisfied
WR-28,425-12,
to
legal
and factual basis,
affair
with
because
the same requirements with
they
are
based on the same
i.e., petitioner's trial judge's sexual
the district attorney. In other words, because both
cases were a package deal, they are necessarily and intrinsically
intertwined. See Ex Parte Cox, 482 S.W.3d 112(Tex.Crim.App.
or
defect
in
one trial, an error
convictions
are
one
requires
both be undone). Because the Texas
Appeals
reached the merits of WR-28,425-11,
multiple
(When
2016)
Court
of
Criminal
this
Court
can
tried
in
review WR-28,425-12 on the merits under Glossip
v. Oklahoma, 604 U.S. 226, 145 S.Ct. 612,221 L.Ed.2d 90 (2025).
(See Appendix E).
B. Merits
Petitioner
under Rule 10 (b) and (c) because the
in
a way that conflicts with its own decisions as well
decisions
of another state court and in a way that conflicts
relevant
decisions of this Court. This Court should decide
question
with
review
Court of Criminal Appeals has decided an important federal
Texas
as
seeks
whether
due
process
permits a judge to preside over a criminal
6.
defendant's
when she is engaged in a secret sexual affair
trial
with the duly elected district attorney.
contends
Petitioner
right
attorney
relationship
sexual
a
in
was
during
in
Murchinson,
942 (1955).
offer
349
Court
a
U.S. 133,
136,
75 S-Ct. 623, 99 L.Ed.2d
”[O]ur system of law has always endeavored to prevent
of unfairness." Almost a century ago, the
possibility
the
Supreme
the duly elected district
with
a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process.
in
even
due process and his
and failed to disclose such. A fair
trial
his
trial
re
of
fair trial in a fair tribunal where his trial judge
a
to
deprived
was
he
that
explained
possible
temptation
"[e]very
to
procedure
which would
the average man as a judge...
not
to
hold the balance nice, clear, and true between the state
and
the
accused
v.
Ohio,
273
U.S.
Law
Abs.
159,
5 Ohio Law Abs. 185, 25 Ohio L. Rep. 236 (1927) .
of
any
Regardless
to
mere
the
fact
this
the latter due process of law." Turney
denies
532,. 47 S.Ct. 437 ,
510,
actual bias , a judg e may be disqualified due
appearance
the
and
of impropriety. Texas caselaw supports
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has granted
relief in such instances.
Parte
Ex
The
state
judge
was
Fort
v.
2022),
Ex
Parte
Lewis, 688 S.W.3d 351 (Tex.
In re Syed, 696 S.W.3d 121 (Tex.Crim.App. 2024),
Crim.App. 2024),
and
71 L.Ed 749, 5 Ohio
S.W.3d
715 (Tex.Crim.App. 2025).
Sanchez,
710
of
Oklahoma
has also granted relief where a sitting
in
a
relationship with a district attorney.
State,
Smith
v.
sexual
2022
Ok Cr 12,516 P.3d 690,694 (Okla.Crim.App.
Bridges,
No. CIV-22-48-HE,2022 U.S.Dist.LEXIS
7.
2022
232465,
(W.D. Okla.Dec. 28, 2022) and Shelton
1796797
WL
v. Nunn, No. CIV-21-1082-D,2022 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 201278, WL 1670844
(W.D.Okla.Nov. 4,2022).
undisputed
The
district
elected
duly
take
judicial
in
petitioner's
motion
Verla Sue Holland and Tom O,Connell,
Ex
Parte Hood, 2008 Tex.Crim.App.Unpub.
proceedings
LEXIS
853,
2008
that
they
were
judge
in
applicant's
duly
elected
in
WL 494276 (Nov. 19, 2008), admitted under oath
sexual relationship while the former was
a
in
convicting
court, and the latter was the
attorney.
Neither
district
would
stated
notice,
during
attorney,
were in a sexual affair at the
attorney
time of petitioner's trial. As
to
that the trial judge and the
establish
facts
petitioner,
nor his
have had any reason to suspect or to have known
judge
that
petitioner's
trial
such
compromising
conduct;
and
prosecutor were engaged in
were
neither
any
other attorneys
criminal defendants that appeared in the 296th District Court
or
during
relevant
the
concealed
illicit
her
time
period.
It is evident that the judge
from
affair
petitioner
and counsel at
a time in which petitioner could have moved for recusal.
Petitioner's
conviction violates the ethos of the constitution
and threatens the legitimacy of our justice system by undermining
impartiality
in
due
the
district
Nothing
strikes more at the heart
than
a trial judge having a sexual affair with
attorney
responsible for every case coming before
process
of
appearance.
her court. It is constitutionally intolerable. Judges
oath
to
conduct
themselves
in
8.
take
an
accordance with the Texas Code
this
Perhaps
See Tex-Code Judicial Conduct Cannon 2(A).
Conduct.
of Judicial
is why the Presiding Judge Schenck stated he would
remand the case to the trial court,
(Appendix A)
, especially
in
light of Texas
eases granting relief in identical circumstances.
Judge
Verla
Sue
Holland
admitted
to
their
sexual affair but were found to be less than
credible
as
to
This
fact
is
and
District
when
the
affair
capable
of
accurate
Attorney Tom O'Connel
commenced and when it ended.
and ready determination by
resort to a source that cannot be reasonably questioned.
CONCLUSION
The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.
Respectfully submitted,
'Pro Se
Date:
<3
9.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.