Ivan's first subsequent application for writ of habeas corpus was filed on April 18th and then one day later, Ivan's death warrant was withdrawn by the Collin County Judge.

Having concluded that additional proceedings are necessary based on this filing, so what did the judge see in the filing that needed additional proceedings?

Let's find out.

The application was lengthy, 154 pages.

It includes the newly discovered evidence, uncovered over the course of this investigation.

But interestingly, it only argued two claims.

As to why Ivan is entitled to a new trial, now the court reviewing these two claims is a criminal court of appeals.

And that court is not reviewing these claims on the merits, meaning ruling on the facts presented in evidence and the law applied to that evidence.

The criminal court of appeals is only ruling on the procedural grounds and to reach that threshold.

Mr. Cantoon need only show that one, the factual and legal basis for his current claims were unavailable at the time he filed his previous application.

And two, the specific facts alleged, if established, would constitute a constitutional violation that would likely require relief from either the conviction or sentence.

So basically the criminal court of appeals is ruling on the timeliness of these claims.

Is the claim based on new evidence or new law that came about after Ivan's original habeas filing in 2004?

And if so, does this new evidence or law create a major violation that would likely overturn the conviction or lessen the sentence?

The criminal court of appeals agrees that one or both of these claims meet that two-pronged threshold, then the claims go back to the trial court.

They go back to Colin County for review on the merits.

So then the ball would be back in Colin County's court to decide if these claims entitle Ivan to a new trial or warrant other legal actions.

Now for the two claims.

The testimony of the state's star witnesses, Amy Betcher and Jeff Betcher, was materially false in violation of ex parte chabo and the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.

Ex parte chabo has to do with the 1986 case out of Garland, Texas.

A man named Clay Chabo was wrongfully convicted based on fraudulent testimony.

Chabo's conviction was vacated in 2008. After new DNA test results proved that his brother-in-law had actually committed the crime and it was that brother-in-law that gave the fraudulent testimony against him.

...