Where the Petitioner, the State, and the habeas court all agree that a conviction is unconstitutional and must be reversed, does it violate due process for a state superior court to summarily deny relief without explanation?

Petitioner Michael Newberry was a teenager when he was convicted of capital murder on the theory that he and his co -defendant, Lilton Deon Moore, murdered the victim in the course of committing a robbery. Nearly thirty years into Mr. Newberry ’s life sentence , the State of Texas —for the first time —produced the testimony Moore gave to the grand jury that the state habeas court determined “removes the aggravating element of robbery .” The court found that the trial prosecutor knowingly withheld Moore’s testimony and police statement, and that the evidence was favorable and material . Joining in Petitioner’s request for relief, the State admitted that it s conduct violated Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83 (1963) , and deprived Mr. Newberry of a fair trial. Despite the agreement of the Petitioner, the prosecution, and the habeas court, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (TCCA) denied relief , with one judge dissenting . The TCCA’s unsigned order contains no reasoning, fails to acknowledge the State’s confession of error , and does not even cite the relevant legal standards . The questions presented are: 1. Whe re the Petitioner, the State, and the habeas court all agree that a con-viction is unconstitutional and must be reversed, does it violate due process for a state superior court to summarily deny relief without explanation? 2. Did the prosecution violate Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83 (1963), by suppressing evidence contradicting its proof ii of the aggravating element distinguishing capital murder from non -capital homicide?