Supreme Court to Consider Rules for Successive Prisoner Appeals

The Supreme Court will hear a case involving a Texas state prisoner’s bid to introduce new evidence that wasn’t presented by his attorney, who he alleged had shown up drunk to his trial.

In an order Friday, the justices agreed to consider the rules barring “second or successive” habeas petitions and whether they apply to filings made after the district court has denied an initial application for relief, but before an appellate court has weighed in.

Danny Rivers, who was sentenced to 38 years in state prison on charges of child pornography and sexually abusing his children, said he didn’t receive his attorney’s records until after a district court denied his habeas petition. Among those records was an report that, he said, suggested he was wrongly convicted.

But the district court said it couldn’t hear the new evidence because “filings introduced after a final judgment that raise habeas claims” are “deemed successive.” The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed that decision on appeal.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton urged the court to reject Rivers’ case, arguing his filing challenged the same six-count conviction as his initial petition.

The case is Rivers v. Lumpkin, U.S., No. 23-1345.