X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:In January 2003, a jury convicted appellant of capital murder. HOLDING:Affirmed. The appellant claims that the mitigation issue is unconstitutional, because it fails to require the trial court to instruct the jury that the state bears the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt on the mitigation issue. The court previously addressed and rejected this argument. Hankins v. State, 132 S.W.3d 380 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). The court rejects the appellants Fifth and Eight Amendment arguments. The appellant alleges that the trial court erred in restricting voir dire on the issue of parole. The court recognized in Hankins v. State, 132 S.W.3d 380 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) that the Legislature amended Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 37.071, effective Sept. 1, 1999, to provide that a jury may now be instructed on a capital defendant’s eligibility for parole. However, the court held that this provision was narrowly drawn and did not render every aspect of parole law an issue for jury consideration. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to allow appellant to voir dire the prospective jurors as requested. The appellant asserts that the trial court erred when it “judicially amended [the mitigation issue] by grafting the evidentiary requirements of [the future dangerousness issue] onto the mitigation issue.” The appellant claims that the trial court erred at punishment in failing to submit to the jury two charges he requested. The court rejects these arguments. The appellant asserts that his trial attorney rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by presenting punishment testimony “that established . . . beyond a reasonable doubt” that he was a continuing threat to society. Specifically, appellant complains about the testimony of defense psychologist Gilda Kessner. Based upon studies of violence in the penitentiary setting, various statistical values, and extrapolation from the various data sources, Kessner testified that there was an “18.8% chance” that appellant would commit acts of violence in the penitentiary. Appellant contends that his lawyer rendered ineffective assistance when counsel presented testimony from S.O. Woods, the former assistant director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice – Institutional Division (TDCJ-ID), that “delegitimatized a capital life sentence as a viable sentencing option.” The court presumes that counsel acted pursuant to a reasonable trial strategy and overrules these points of error. OPINION:Meyers, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which Keller, P.J., and Price, Johnson, Keasler, Hervey, Holcomb, and Cochran, JJ., join. Womack, J., concurs.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.