Published opinion, 24 September 2026 · source · PDF · 20 pages
668 (1984), when trial counsel: (a) completely failed to request Ake expert funding; (b) failed to investigate documented prior fabrications (Beaumont PD Case No.
App.— Fort Worth July 25, 2024, no pet.) (overruling pro se appellant’s issues as inadequately briefed and noting that court “c[ould ]not tell from [appellant’s] brief” if he had used ChatGPT or another AI tool because authorities cited in the brief did not exist) ; Lee, 673 S.W.3d at 756, 757 & n.2 (holding that appellant, who was represented by counsel, had inadequately briefed his appellate issue and affirming 15 trial court’s denial of habeas relief when it appeared that appellant’s brief had be en prepared by AI because it cited authorities that did not exist and failed to include citations to the record) ; see also In re C.R. , No.
Several arguments and factual assertions in Thomas’s brief are unsupported by citations to authorities or to the record. For those citations that he has included , many of the record citations a re incomplete,6 and many of the citations to authorities are fictitious or inaccurate , do not contain the language quoted by Thomas, or do not state the proposition for which he cites them . For many others, Thomas does not explain how the cited authorities support his argument.
App. 2013)” for the proposition that “[t]he Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has firmly established that when a habeas application pres ents material, scientifically complex factual parameters that cannot be safely determined on the four corners of a paper record, the court abuses its discretion by failing to hold an oral evidentiary hearing .” That case does not exist in the South Western Reporter . Instead, that volume and page number of the South Western Reporter belong to a 6For example, Thomas provides the following reference: “ The prosecutor then used this false physical narrative . . . to validate the complainant ’s overall truthfulness (p.
A pp. Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, no pet.)” for the proposition that “[a] habeas court abuses its discretion” by denying relief without a hearing, by “fail [ing] to issue necessary subpoenas for exculpatory evidence,” by “ignor[ing] a reasonable request for a continuance ,” and by “appl[ying] an incorrect legal standard.” But that case appears to be fictitious or the citation inaccurate; the citation takes the reader to the background section of Winningham v. State , 334 S.W.3d 289, 294 (Tex.
Houston [1st Dist.] 2018, pet. ref ’d).” He does not provide the page number of his brief on which the case appears—though none of the pages in his brief are numbered— and a search through the document reveals that it is not actually cited in the b rief. In any event, that case also appears to be fictitious or the citation inaccurate. But see Vernon v.