Ex Parte Panetti
2010 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1677
Tex. Crim. App.2010Background
- Panetti was convicted in Sept. 1995 of capital murder and sentenced to death after a jury found the relevant Texas capital murder special issues met; direct appeal upheld the conviction and sentence.
- He filed multiple post-conviction habeas petitions; initial and first subsequent petitions were denied; this is Panetti’s second subsequent application received Oct. 20, 2010.
- Panetti raised two allegations in this application, including an Eighth Amendment challenge to allowing self-representation at trial.
- The Court dismissed the application as barred by Article 11.071, §5, concluding the claims failed under that provision.
- Holcomb, joined by Johnson, dissented, urging consideration of the Eighth Amendment claim in light of Edwards and Chadwick and arguing Edwards constituted new law for purposes of §5.
- The majority’s decision relied on existing law, while the dissent would recognize Edwards as new law and grant relief on the Eighth Amendment claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Edwards-based claims are barred by §5. | Panetti argues Edwards is new law and thus should be considered. | Panetti’s claims were barred under §5 because Edwards was not new law at the time; Chadwick does not apply. | Edwards constitutes new law; but Panetti’s application is dismissed on other grounds per the majority. |
| Whether Panetti’s Eighth Amendment claim about self-representation should be considered. | Panetti contends his mental illness forecloses self-representation under the Eighth Amendment. | The court should apply §5 and dismiss without consideration of the Edwards-based claim. | The majority dismisses under §5; dissent would consider the Eighth Amendment claim on the merits. |
| Whether the trial court’s admission of self-representation violated the Eighth Amendment. | The trial court violated the Eighth Amendment by permitting self-representation given Panetti’s severe mental illness. | Faretta compliance was satisfied; Edwards-based concerns not yet recognized as controlling. | Majority: not addressed on merits due to §5 dismissal; dissent would address on merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164 (U.S. 2008) (mental-illness limitation on right to self-representation)
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975) (Sixth Amendment right to self-representation requires knowing waiver)
- Chadwick v. State, 309 S.W.3d 558 (Tex.Crim.App.2010) (recent Texas case recognizing mental illness can trump self-representation)
- Ex parte Moreno, 245 S.W.3d 419 (Tex.Crim.App.2008) (court’s authority to revisit earlier Edwards-based claims)
- Lowenfield v. Phelps, 484 U.S. 231 (U.S. 1988) (heightened reliability in capital sentencing)
- Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (U.S. 1978) (plurality on mitigating evidence in sentencing)
- Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153 (U.S. 1988) (judicial interest in fair-trial perception)