We have a new situation,new to us anyway, where a guy we know as a local drug dealer was indicted for two counts of delivery to a CI before (both the offense and the indictment) the law changed on corroboration of CI's testimony, thanks to the Tulia backlash. Anyway, this nice man was also on parole for delivery of cocaine from another county and his attorneys managed to delay the trial until after the new law went into effect, our judge first was going to go under the old law, but then changed his ruling and gave them the corroboration instruction in the charge, but we still got a jury verdict of guilty on one of the two counts. The Court of Appeals ended up reversing the case saying we did not have enough corroboration and the CCA did not give us any relief.

He had his parole revoked on his old case and is now out on parole again on that and obviously ended up skating on ours. Now he has a civil attorney contacting our DA asking us to give him a Certificate of Actual Innocence so he can file for compensation under 103 of the CPRC. Does not section (b) of 103.001 apply here? Regardless of what happened on appeal with our case, he was also serving a concurrent sentence for another crime, the delivery he had his parole revoked on, at the time he was serving our sentence. His parole notice even lists only the old 12 year sentence and uses its dates for figuring parole eligibility etc.

If anyone knows differently, and/or has any thoughts on his request concerning his "actual innocence", please let me know. If I need to ask the civil guys I can go there. I frankly agree with the jury on this anyway, with all due respect to the Courts, they listened to the "buy tapes" and all of the other evidence and they found him guilty on one of the two counts.