Brown, Arthur Jr.
WR-26,178-03
| Tex. App. | May 27, 2015Background
- Arthur Brown Jr. was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death in 1993; direct/appellate/post-conviction relief denied.
- Trial court set an execution date for Oct. 29, 2013, later withdrawn to allow ballistics retesting.
- Brown filed a subsequent 11.071 habeas application in Oct. 2014 alleging false testimony, withheld evidence, and ineffective assistance of trial counsel (IATC) regarding mitigation.
- Brown urged the Court to reconsider Graves to allow substantial IATC claims, invoking Martinez v. Ryan and Trevino v. Thaler for equitable relief.
- The motion argues that Graves forecloses review of defaulted IATC claims, and seeks a jurisdictional path to consider the Wiggins claim.
- Brown contends not only that the Wiggins claim is substantial, but that state habeas counsel’s ineffectiveness tainted the entire process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Should Graves be reconsidered to permit IATC review? | Brown argues Martinez/Trevino justify allowing review of defaulted IATC. | Brown's motion asserts Graves blocks this relief under current law; proposes equitable or constitutional workaround. | Court should reconsider Graves to permit IATC review. |
| Is § 5 of Article 11.071 unconstitutional as applied to defaulted IATC claims? | Brown contends § 5 suspends the writ in a way that defeats Martinez/Trevino relief. | State may rely on § 5 as procedural regulation; no unconstitutional suspension shown here. | Court should hold § 5 unconstitutional as applied and preserve state-review jurisdiction. |
| What mechanism should the Court adopt to allow review without overturning Graves or creating a broad exception? | Brown proposes an equitable remedy within § 5 or a constitutional-jurisdiction approach. | State would prefer minimal changes to Graves or § 5 rather than new carveouts. | Court should consider an equitable alternative to restore review without sweeping changes. |
| Does Brown's Wiggins claim satisfy substantiality and merit review under Martinez/Trevino? | Wiggins evidence and ineffective state habeas counsel show substantial IATC claim. | Rests on asserted deficiencies; argues need for proper development under existing regime. | Wiggins claim is substantial and merits consideration under Martinez/Trevino. |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012) (equitable exception to defaulted IATC claims in initial state proceedings)
- Trevino v. Thaler, 133 S. Ct. 1911 (2013) (applies Martinez to Texas; allows federal review of defaulted IATC claims)
- Ex parte Graves, 70 S.W.3d 103 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (limits independent cognizable IATC in 11.071; sets bar on Graves review)
- Ex parte Davis, 947 S.W.2d 216 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (rejected suspension of writ for subsequent convening; discusses 11.071 scope)
- Ex parte Medina, 361 S.W.3d 633 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (perfunctory writs not true habeas; informs § 5 interpretation)
- Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 501 (1982) (federalism/comity: federal courts defer to state courts for constitutional review)