Green, Jonathan Marcus
2012 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 866
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2012Background
- Appellant Green convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death in 2002; execution scheduled for June 30, 2010.
- Green filed a subsequent habeas corpus application alleging incompetence to be executed and seeking an Article 46.05 competency hearing.
- District Court held a competency hearing on June 28, 2010; two experts testified (defense psychologist finding incompetence; State psychiatrist finding competence).
- Green testified about delusions and innocence; he acknowledged an execution date and understood the charges and proceedings.
- Trial court concluded Green was competent under Article 46.05 and denied a stay; this Court stayed then vacated the stay and proceeded to review; issues included habeas cognizability, standard of review, and recusal.”
- This Court ultimately held: (1) competency-to-be-executed claims are not cognizable on habeas corpus but are reviewable under Article 46.05; (2) the trial court used the correct standard and did not abuse its discretion in finding competence; (3) the appeal from the denial of recusal was improper and the stay was lifted.]
- Delivered June 27, 2012; cases AP-76,374, AP-76,376, AP-76,381.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cognizable on habeas corpus? | Green; Article 11.071 plain language. | State; Article 46.05 exclusive review. | Not cognizable on habeas corpus; governed by Article 46.05. |
| Constitutionality of Article 46.05 after Panetti | Panetti requires additional protections not provided by Article 46.05. | Article 46.05 constitutionally adequate. | Panetti clarifies Ford, but Article 46.05 remains constitutionally adequate. |
| Appropriate standard of review for competency | Guzman framework; deference to trial court. | Deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. | Abuse-of-discretion standard applied; trial court’s finding supported by record. |
| Recusal appeal proper？ | Trial judge should be recused; ex parte communication. | Recusal motion premature; no abuse. | Appeal from denial of recusal improper; if properly before, no abuse shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (U.S. 1986) (Eighth Amendment prohibits execution of the insane; foundation for competency standards)
- Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930 (U.S. 2007) (clarified Ford; delusions may inform competency evaluation)
- Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (standard of review for competency determinations; abuse-of-discretion guidance)
- Ex parte Alba, 256 S.W.3d 682 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (limits of habeas corpus scope; context for death-penalty claims)
- Ex parte Goodman, 816 S.W.2d 383 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (habeas corpus not substitute for direct appeal)