Gonzales, Michael Dean, WR-40,541-04

Background

Michael Dean Gonzales was convicted of capital murder (1995); his death sentence was vacated on federal habeas and he was resentenced to death after a 2009 retrial.
At the punishment retrial and sentencing proceedings Gonzales behaved disruptively, insisted on testifying, and immediately sought to waive appeals and post-conviction relief, rejecting appointed counsel.
No initial state Article 11.071 habeas application was filed before the filing deadline; the convicting court reported that Gonzales refused appointed habeas counsel and that his election to proceed pro se was intelligent and voluntary.
This Court treated Gonzales’s later pro se habeas filing as a subsequent, abusive application under Art. 11.071 § 5(a), concluding he had waived his right to an initial state habeas application.
Gonzales now alleges he was incompetent to waive state post-conviction proceedings and argues the Court should treat his present application as an initial application rather than subsequent; the dissent urges the Court to address competency before rejecting the application.
The federal habeas proceedings were stayed pending exhaustion; failure to resolve state competency could affect federal exhaustion and procedural-default litigation and potentially lead to de novo federal review.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Gonzales)	Defendant's Argument (State/Court majority)	Held
Whether Gonzales’s later habeas is an "initial" or a "subsequent" application	Gonzales argues he was incompetent to waive his right to file an initial Article 11.071 application, so the later filing should be treated as initial	Court treated his prior inaction as an intelligent, voluntary waiver, so any later filing is subsequent/abusive under Art. 11.071 § 5(a)	Court (majority) labels application subsequent and rejects it as abusive; dissent urges competency inquiry
Whether a habeas waiver requires a competency inquiry	Gonzales: due process requires competency to waive collateral review; no inquiry was made before deadline	Court majority: accepted convicting court’s finding that waiver was intelligent and voluntary; no competency inquiry addressed	Dissent: finds allegations raise bona fide doubt and would order inquiry; majority did not address issue
Whether the convicting court complied with Article 11.071 § 2(a)’s hearing/finding requirements	Gonzales: there was no on-the-record finding that his election to proceed pro se was knowingly and voluntarily made	State: convicting court reported he refused counsel and said the election was intelligent and voluntary	Reality: record lacks an express on-the-record colloquy or formal finding; dissent faults the failure to inquire or memorialize competency
Federalism/exhaustion consequences of declining to adjudicate competency	Gonzales: failure to resolve competency may lead federal courts to excuse exhaustion or procedural default, producing de novo federal review	State: by treating application as subsequent, state proceedings end and federal courts will address exhaustion/default	Dissent: resolving competency at state level would better protect federalism and could preserve deference if state reaches merits; majority avoided the issue

Key Cases Cited

Ex parte Reynoso, 257 S.W.3d 715 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (discusses waiver of state habeas and competence findings)
Gonzales v. Quarterman, 458 F.3d 384 (5th Cir. 2006) (federal habeas litigation that resulted in resentencing)
Lopez v. Stephens, 783 F.3d 524 (5th Cir. 2015) (capital habeas waiver requires competency inquiry)
Mata v. Johnson, 210 F.3d 324 (5th Cir. 2000) (when bona fide doubt of competency exists, court must inquire and may order psychiatric evaluation)
Rees v. Peyton, 384 U.S. 312 (1966) (standard on capacity to waive collateral review)
Ex parte Medina, 361 S.W.3d 633 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (one full and fair opportunity for capital post-conviction relief)
Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012) (ineffective assistance of initial state habeas counsel may constitute cause to excuse default)