Beatty, Tracy Lane
WR-59,939-03
| Tex. App. | Aug 7, 2015Background
- Applicant Tracy Lane Beatty is facing an August 13, 2015 execution and filed a subsequent state habeas application under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.071 on August 4, 2015, one day before the Court’s filing deadline.
- Beatty contends this is his second Article 11.071 application (first filed Jan. 4, 2007); the State repeatedly (and, Beatty says, incorrectly) characterized it as a third application.
- Beatty seeks authorization to proceed under § 5(a)(2), arguing that but for federal- and state-constitutional violations, no rational juror could have found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The core factual predicate is that critical hearsay testimony from witness McCarty was necessary to sustain the burglary and capital-murder conviction.
- Beatty also alternatively asks the Court to reconsider Ex parte Graves because his initial state-habeas counsel allegedly forfeited substantial guilt-phase ineffectiveness claims (ineffective assistance of state habeas counsel), rendering those claims previously unavailable.
- Three principal habeas claims: (1) appellate counsel ineffective for failing to raise preserved hearsay/admissibility error concerning McCarty’s testimony; (2) trial counsel ineffective for failing to investigate/present evidence rebutting the burglary charge; (3) the State created a false impression to the jury about whether Click’s statements constituted withdrawal of consent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Beatty’s subsequent application should be authorized under Art. 11.071 §5(a)(2) | Beatty: §5(a)(2) satisfied because McCarty’s hearsay was material and, but for constitutional violations, no rational juror could convict | State: Move to dismiss arguing Beatty failed §5(a)(1) showing that factual/legal bases were previously unavailable (treats it as a §5(a)(1) subsequent application) | Not decided in this filing — applicant asks Court to deny State’s motion and authorize under §5(a)(2) |
| Whether Beatty’s filing is a timely/authorized subsequent application (procedural posture) | Beatty: Filed Aug 4, 2015 (timely under Misc. Rule 11-003); this is his second Article 11.071 application | State: Characterizes application as "last minute" and calls it a third writ; argues procedural defects | Disputed; applicant asserts timely and second application; Court action pending |
| Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise preserved hearsay error (McCarty/Click multilayer hearsay) | Beatty: Appellate counsel failed to read/recognize trial objections; error was preserved; McCarty’s multilayer hearsay (Click → McCarty → jury) had no applicable exception and was material to conviction | State: Argues the testimony was admissible under alternative theories (state-of-mind, excited utterance, Art. 38.36) and thus appellate counsel’s omission is not prejudicial | Not decided here; applicant argues sufficient to authorize review under §5(a)(2) |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate/present rebuttal evidence to burglary testimony | Beatty: New evidence and witness affidavits (not presented at trial) would rebut burglary theory and undercut McCarty’s testimony; counsel had duty to investigate/rebut critical state evidence | State: Suggests Beatty’s support rests primarily on one witness (Wilkerson) and downplays new evidence; characterizes some evidence as similar to the inadmissible hearsay | Not decided here; applicant argues claim is supported by newly-developed evidence and sufficient for authorization |
| Whether the State created a false impression about withdrawal of consent (consent/entry element) | Beatty: New evidence shows Click repeatedly asked Beatty to leave but did not withdraw consent; reliance on McCarty’s inadmissible statements created a false impression of lack of consent | State: Treats the claim as record-based or as improper argument theory; disputes Beatty’s framing | Not decided here; applicant asserts claim raises substantial question meriting authorization |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Campbell, 225 S.W.3d 418 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (describes §5(a)(1) unavailability standard for subsequent applications)
- Ex parte Staley, 160 S.W.3d 56 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (addresses dismissal of subsequent application for failing to show previously unavailable factual/legal basis)
- Ex parte Graves, 270 S.W.3d 103 (Tex. Crim. App.) (articulates Court’s prior approach to equitable exceptions for defaulted claims)
- Ex parte Blue, 230 S.W.3d 151 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (threshold posture on authorizing subsequent applications)
- Ex parte Santana, 227 S.W.3d 700 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (reasonable probability standard for successful habeas claims on appeal)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (prejudice standard; reasonable probability concept under Strickland)
- Ex parte Miller, 330 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (remedy following successful habeas showing is often to permit direct appeal)
- Leday v. State, 983 S.W.2d 713 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (defense may rebut or explain inadmissible evidence without waiving error)
- Gibbs v. State, 819 S.W.2d 821 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (limitation on state-of-mind hearsay exception)