Sanchez, Adam

In the Court of Criminal
Appeals of Texas
═══════════════
Nos. WR-95,617-01, -02
═══════════════

EX PARTE ADAM SANCHEZ,
Applicant

═══════════════════════════════════════
On Applications for Writs of Habeas Corpus
In Cause Nos. 2017CR9179-W1 and 2017CR9174-W1
In the 226th District Court
Bexar County
═══════════════════════════════════════

YEARY, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which KELLER, P.J., joined.

In April of 2019, Applicant pled nolo contendere to two counts of
aggravated sexual assault, allegedly committed against his biological
son and daughter. TEX. PENAL CODE § 22.021(a)(1)(B). He was convicted
and was sentenced to concurrent sentences of twenty-five years for each
offense. The complainant children later recanted their accusations
SANCHEZ – 2

against their father, and, in November of 2021, Applicant filed the
instant applications for writs of habeas corpus. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.
art. 11.07. Based primarily on the children’s recantations, Applicant
pleads actual innocence. He also alleges ineffective assistance of trial
counsel.
Today the Court grants Applicant relief under Ex parte Elizondo,
947 S.W.2d 202 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996), on his claim of actual innocence.
Majority Opinion at 2. I do not rule out that Applicant may be entitled
to relief under Elizondo, but I would not reach that conclusion yet. 1
According to the record, the complainant children made their
initial outcries to a Tyleious (Ty) Garner, who was their mother’s
boyfriend at the time. The children have recanted their accusations
against Applicant and now claim, in essence, that they were coerced by
Garner into falsely accusing their father of the crimes for which he is

1 As I have frequently explained, satisfying Elizondo’s admittedly high

burden is still “not the same as establishing that the applicant is manifestly
innocent.” Ex parte Cacy, 543 S.W.3d 802, 803 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (Yeary,
J., concurring). See Ex parte Chaney, 563 S.W.3d 239, 286 (Tex. Crim. App.
2018) (Yeary, J., concurring) (“I do not regard the Elizondo standard as
sufficiently rigorous to justify the nomenclature ‘actual innocence.’”); Ex parte
Mallet, 602 S.W.3d 922, 925−26 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020) (Yeary, J., concurring)
(agreeing that the applicant satisfied Elizondo, but advocating that the Court
“avoid the label ‘actual innocence’”); Ex parte Santillan, 666 S.W.3d 580,
580−81 (Tex. Crim. App. 2023) (Yeary, J., concurring) (agreeing that the
applicant had probably established true “actual innocence,” and was therefore
entitled to relief, but refusing to join the Court’s opinion because it declared
him “actually innocent” simply because he satisfied the Elizondo standard”);
Ex parte Lane, 670 S.W.3d 662, 680 n.1 & 684−85 (Tex. Crim. App. 2023)
(Yeary, J., dissenting) (arguing that in an initial writ application, the applicant
established that he was “absolutely innocent”—as opposed to “actually
innocent”—of failure to register, having proven in the writ proceeding that he
had no reportable conviction).
SANCHEZ – 3

currently imprisoned. I find nothing in the record indicating that Garner
was called to testify at the habeas court’s evidentiary hearing or that he
provided an affidavit or other response to the children’s statements
about his involvement in their initial outcries. Given his importance to
the children’s accusations against their father and their subsequent
recantations, I would remand the case to the habeas court with
instructions to obtain a response from Garner and develop the record
concerning Garner’s involvement in this case.
There is also testimony in the record that another man, identified
only as Thomas, was present when the children explained to their
mother how they came up with the details of their accusations against
Applicant. There is some indication that this man, Thomas, may at some
point have provided a statement in this case. But that statement does
not appear to be included in the record provided to this Court. I would,
therefore, also remand this case to the habeas court with instructions to
obtain this statement or other testimony from Thomas.
Because the Court does otherwise, I respectfully dissent.

FILED: June 19, 2024
PUBLISH