Ex Parte Cesar Robert Fierro A.k.a. Cesar Roberto Reyna

Summary

The Court denied the applicant's post‑conviction writ of habeas corpus, holding that the State's knowing use of perjured testimony was harmless because the applicant failed to meet his preponderance‑of‑the‑evidence burden to show the error contributed to his conviction. The Court reasoned that perjured testimony is trial error subject to the Chapman harmless‑error analysis and that the remaining evidence, particularly the eyewitness testimony, would likely have produced the same verdict.