2/28/2015

EX PARTE CARTY, Tex: Court of Criminal Appeals 2015 - Google Scholar

EXPARTELINDACARTY.
No.WR61,05502.
CourtofCriminalAppealsofTexas.
February25,2015.
KELLER,P.J.,filedadissentingopinion.NEWELL,J.,notparticipating.

DONOTPUBLISH
ORDER
PERCURIAM.
ThisisasubsequentapplicationforwritofhabeascorpusfiledpursuanttotheprovisionsofTexasCodeofCriminal
ProcedureArticle11.071,5.
InFebruary2002,Applicantwasconvictedoftheoffenseofcapitalmurder.Thejuryansweredthespecialissuessubmitted
pursuanttoTexasCodeofCriminalProcedureArticle37.071,andthetrialcourt,accordingly,setpunishmentatdeath.
ThisCourtaffirmedApplicant'sconvictionandsentenceondirectappeal.Cartyv.State,No.AP74,295(Tex.Crim.App.
April7,2004).ThisCourtdeniedreliefonApplicant'sinitialpostconvictionapplicationforwritofhabeascorpus.Exparte
Carty,No.WR61,05501(Tex.Crim.App.March2,2005).Applicant'sinstantpostconvictionapplicationforwritofhabeas
corpuswasfiledinthetrialcourtonSeptember10,2014.
Applicantpresentssixallegations.WehavereviewedtheapplicationandfindthatAllegationsA,B,andCsatisfythe
requirementsofTexasCodeofCriminalProcedureArticle11.071,5(a).Accordingly,wefindthattherequirementsfor
considerationofasubsequentapplicationhavebeenmetandthecauseisremandedtothetrialcourtforconsiderationof
AllegationsA,B,andC.
ITISSOORDERED.
KELLER,P.J.,filedadissentingopinion.
ApplicantwasconvictedofcapitalmurderandsentencedtodeathinFebruary2002.Shefiledherfirsthabeasapplication
in2003,andwedeniedreliefonthatapplicationin2005.Inasubsequenthabeasapplicationfiledin2014,applicantnow
contends,interalia,thatnewlydiscoveredevidenceshowsthattheStateknowinglyusedfalsetestimonyandsuppressed
exculpatoryevidence.TheCourtfindsthattheseclaimssatisfyanexceptiontothebaragainstsubsequentapplications
andremandstheseclaimsforconsiderationoftheirmerits.[1]Idisagreeandwoulddismissthehabeasapplicationas
barredunderArticle11.071,5.

A.5
Acourtmaynotconsiderthemeritsofasubsequenthabeasapplicationunless"theapplicationcontainssufficientspecific
facts"establishingoneofthefollowingexceptions:
(1)thecurrentclaimsandissueshavenotbeenandcouldnothavebeenpresentedpreviouslyinatimely
initialapplicationorinapreviouslyconsideredapplicationfiledunderthisarticleorArticle11.07because
thefactualorlegalbasisfortheclaimwasunavailableonthedatetheapplicantfiledtheprevious
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=carty&hl=en&as_sdt=4,240&case=7760921746563736082&scilh=0

1/4

2/28/2015

EX PARTE CARTY, Tex: Court of Criminal Appeals 2015 - Google Scholar

application
(2)byapreponderanceoftheevidence,butforaviolationoftheUnitedStatesConstitutionnorationaljuror
couldhavefoundtheapplicantguiltybeyondareasonabledoubtor
(3)byclearandconvincingevidence,butforaviolationoftheUnitedStatesConstitutionnorationaljuror
wouldhaveansweredinthestate'sfavoroneormoreofthespecialissuesthatweresubmittedtothejuryin
theapplicant'strialunderArticle37.071,37.0711,or37.072.[2]
Tobeconsideredonthemerits,then,aclaiminasubsequentapplicationmustbebaseduponpreviouslyunavailablefacts
orlaw,orelseitmustsatisfytheinnocenceorinnocenceofthedeathpenaltygatewaystandards.Applicantallegesallof
theseexceptions,butshesatisfiesnoneofthem.

B.PreviouslyUnavailableFacts
1.TheAllegedFactualBases
Applicantpresentsaffidavitsobtainedin2014fromChristopherRobinson,MarvinCaston,GeraldAnderson,andformer
DEAAgentCharlieMathis.RobinsonandCaston'saffidavitsallegethattheprosecutorscoercedthemintogivingfalse
testimonyattrialaboutapplicant'sconductthatincriminatedapplicant.ApplicantadditionallycontendsthatCaston's
affidavitshowsthatsomesortofdealwasstruckbetweenhimandtheStatethatwasnotdisclosedtothedefense.[3]
GeraldAnderson's[4]affidavitallegesthattheprosecutorsattemptedtocoercehimintotestifyingfalselyatapplicant'strial
butthathedeclinedtodosoandwasultimatelyassessedalifesentence.Mathis'saffidavitallegesthattheprosecutors
engagedincoerciveconductwhentheyinterrogatedapplicantandalleges,basedonhisexperiencewithherasan
informant,thatapplicantwasnotthesortofpersonwhowouldhavecommittedcapitalmurder.

2.DiligenceinGeneral
UnderArticle11.071,5,thefactualbasisofaclaimisunavailableif"thefactualbasiswasnotascertainablethroughthe
exerciseofreasonablediligenceonorbefore"thedatetheapplicationwasfiled.[5]Noneoftheaffidavitsofferedby
applicantsatisfiesthisreasonablediligencestandard.Althoughtheaffidavitswereobtainedin2014,applicantdoesnot
claimthatthesewitnessessteppedforwardontheirown.Thequestionariseswhyapplicantcouldnothaveobtainedthis
informationbythetimeshefiledherfirsthabeasapplication.
ApplicantcontendsthatshewasentitledtorelyuponapresumptionthattheStatewoulddiscloseexculpatorymaterials
andinformthedefenseofanyfalsetestimony.Butalmostalloftheallegedfalseandexculpatoryevidencerelatesto
applicant'sownconduct.Applicanthadknowledgeofherownconductonthedayoftheincident.IfRobinsonandCaston
hadliedaboutapplicant'sconductintheirtestimony,applicantwouldhaveknown,attrial,thattheyhadlied.Shealsohad
knowledgeofhowtheprosecutorsinterrogatedherandofherownrelationshipasaninformantwithMathis.Shedidnot
needtheStatetoinformherofhervariousinteractionswiththeState'switnesses.Shewouldneedtodiscoverwhetherthe
witnesseswouldadmittothetruth(ifinfacttheyhadliedordidpossessexculpatoryinformationabouther)andwhether
theStatewasbehindaparticularwitness'sfailuretoconveycompleteandtruthfulinformation.Todiscoverthat,allher
defenseteamneededtodowasinterviewthewitnesses,ifthewitnesseswouldtalk.
GeraldAndersondidnottestify,andsothevalueofhisaffidavitrelatesprimarilytoinformationapplicantwouldnothave
beenprivyto:theprosecutors'allegedattemptstocoercehimtocommitperjury.Butbecausehedidnottestifyagainsther,
shewouldhavereasontobelievethathewouldbesympathetictoher,especiallyafterhereceivedhislifesentencefor
aggravatedkidnapping,imposedonNovember22,2002.Hecouldhavebeenqueriedatthattimeabouthisinteractions
withtheState,ifhewerewillingtotalk.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=carty&hl=en&as_sdt=4,240&case=7760921746563736082&scilh=0

2/4

2/28/2015

EX PARTE CARTY, Tex: Court of Criminal Appeals 2015 - Google Scholar

3.CastonandGeraldAnderson
ApplicantclaimsonlythatRobinsonandMathishaddeclinedtotalkearlieraboutthecase.Shedoesnotclaimthatthere
waseveranyimpedimenttotalkingwithCastonandGeraldAnderson,and,so,shehasfailedtoshowthatCastonand
GeraldAnderson'saffidavitscouldnothavebeenprocuredforuseinherfirsthabeasapplication.

4.Robinson
ToshowthatRobinsonrefuseduntilnowtodisclosetheinformationinhisaffidavit,applicantreliesuponthefollowing
statementinthataffidavit:"ForyearsIjustdidn'twanttotalkaboutthiscasebutthisisthetruthofwhathappened."But
notwantingtodiscusssomethingisnotthesameasrefusingtodiscussit.ThereisnoallegationthatApplicantevertriedto
talktoRobinsonabouthercase,sowedonotknowwhetherhewouldhavediscussedthecaseifapplicanthadasked.
Moreover,Robinsonsayshewasscared"atLindaCarty'strial"becauseoftheState'sthreats,butoncehehadpledguilty
toaggravatedkidnappingandreceivedalifewithoutparolesentence,hehadnoreasontobescaredoftheState'sthreats.
ApplicanthasfailedtoestablishthatRobinson'stestimonywaspreviouslyunavailable.

5.Mathis
Applicant'sclaimofunavailabilitywithrespecttoMathis'saffidavitrestsonafoundationofsand.Applicantreliesuponthe
followingstatement:"Sincemylastaffidavit,IhaveattemptedtoavoidspeakingtoLindaCarty'sdefenseteambecauseI
haveseriousongoinghealthcomplicationsandbecausethiscaseisasourceofstressanddifficultyforme."Mathissays
onlythatheattemptedtoavoidcontactwiththedefenseteamafterhisprioraffidavit.Theprioraffidavitwassignedin
October2005.EvenifMathis'sstatementweretakenasevidencethatherefusedtotalktothedefenseteamafterOctober
2005,applicanthasallegednofactstosuggestthatshecouldnothavecontactedMathisin2003,whenherfirsthabeas
applicationwasfiled.Andthefactthatanaffidavitwasobtainedin2005suggeststhatMathiswasindeedwillingtotalkto
thedefense.

C.PreviouslyUnavailableLaw
ApplicantalsoclaimsthatExparteChabot[6]providesapreviouslyunavailablelegalbasisbecauseitwasthefirsttimethis
Courtrecognizedthattheprosecution'sunknowinguseoffalsetestimonycouldbeadueprocessviolation.ButtheCourt
doesnotremandonapplicant's"unknowinguse"claim,andIagreewiththeCourt'sdecisioninthatregard.Thelaw
regardingtheknowinguseoffalseevidencehaslongbeenwellestablished,[7]asisthecasewiththelawregardingthe
suppressionofexculpatoryevidence.[8]

D.InnocenceandInnocenceoftheDeathPenalty
Applicantcontendsthatnorationaljurorcouldhavefoundherguiltyorassessedthedeathpenaltyabsentthealleged
constitutionalviolations.Tosupportthiscontention,sheassertsthattheviolations"gototheheartofCarty'scapitalmurder
trialandunderminetheState'stheoryofthecase"andthat"thesuppressedevidenceandmisleadingtestimonywentto
whetherCartyactedintentionallyinkillingRodriguezandwhetherheractions(iftrue)actuallykilledRodriguez."Evenifwe
acceptedtheseassertions,thatwouldnotshowthatnorationaljurorcouldhavefoundherguiltyorassessedadeath
sentence.TheevidenceattrialincludedtestimonynotonlyfromRobinsonandCaston,butalsofromallegedaccomplices
JosieAndersonandZebediahCombs,aswellasasignificantamountofnonaccompliceevidenceconnectingapplicantto
themurder.[9]
Applicantalsoreliesuponaffidavitssubmittedbyfourjurorswhoclaimthat,hadtheyknownaboutcertainallegedly
exculpatoryfactscontainedintheaffidavitsinthehabeasrecord,theywouldnothavefoundapplicantguiltyofcapital
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=carty&hl=en&as_sdt=4,240&case=7760921746563736082&scilh=0

3/4

2/28/2015

EX PARTE CARTY, Tex: Court of Criminal Appeals 2015 - Google Scholar

murderorwouldnothaveassessedthedeathpenalty.TheseaffidavitsareinadmissibleunderTexasRuleofEvidence
606(b)andcannotbeconsidered.[10]Eveniftheycouldbeconsidered,evidencethatjurorswhoservedinadefendant's
trialwouldnothavefoundadefendantguiltyorassessedthedeathpenaltydoesnotestablishthatnorationaljurorwould
havedoneso.
Irespectfullydissent.
[1]SeeTEX.CODECRIM.PROC.art.11.071,5(a).
[2]Id.
[3]Inhisaffidavit,Castonallegesthattheprosecutorsrepeatedthesamethreatinvariousmeetings:"thatIwouldbesentencedtothirty
yearsunlessLindaCartygotthedeathpenaltyandChrisRobinsongotthirtytofortyyears."Castonfurtherstatedthattheprosecutors
"essentiallypromisedmethatifLindadidgetthedeathpenalty,andifChrisdidgetthirtyorfortyyears,thenIwouldnotgetthirtyyears
myself."(Emphasisinoriginal).
[4]BecauseapersonnamedJosieAndersonwasalsoinvolvedinthiscase,IrefertoGeraldAndersonthroughoutbybothhisfirstandlast
names.
[5]Id.5(e).
[6]300S.W.3d768(Tex.Crim.App.2009).
[7]SeeExparteFierro,934S.W.2d370(Tex.Crim.App.1996).
[8]SeeBradyv.Maryland,373U.S.83(1963).
[9]Cartyv.State,No.74,295,slipop.(Tex.Crim.App.April7,2004)(notdesignatedforpublication).
[10]SeeTEX.R.EVID.606(b).

SavetreesreadcourtopinionsonlineonGoogleScholar.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=carty&hl=en&as_sdt=4,240&case=7760921746563736082&scilh=0

4/4