Hamilton, Walter Aaron
WR-80,458-01
| Tex. App. | May 5, 2015

Background

  • Hamilton was convicted by a jury in 2008 of four counts of aggravated sexual assault, aggravated robbery, and aggravated kidnapping with multi-count sentences totaling lengthy terms.
  • The Court of Criminal Appeals granted relief in 2015 by setting aside Count II for double jeopardy but denied other relief.
  • Hamilton sought rehearing; the court granted an extension and considered additional arguments.
  • He argues the relief should extend to Counts II–VI due to a broader double jeopardy violation and that actual innocence, ineffective assistance, and prosecutorial misconduct issues were not properly addressed.
  • The motion relies on Texas and federal habeas standards, Schlup/Herrera concepts, and promises of uniformity in appellate interpretation.
  • The petition-prayer requests setting aside more counts and potential new appeal rights based on ineffective appellate counsel and prosecutorial misconduct.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Double jeopardy; proper unit of prosecution Hamilton: Counts II–VI constitute multiplicity; unit is each victim Hamilton contends precedent requires setting aside all related counts Relief should extend to Counts II–VI per precedent (requires broader relief).
Actual innocence claim Actual innocence intertwined with constitutional error (Schlup/Herrera) Court rejected innocence claim under standard and deemed it not newly discovered Schlup-based consideration allowed; relief warranted when evidence shows real innocence.
Ineffective assistance of counsel on habeas and prosecutorial misconduct Both trial and appellate counsel were ineffective; prosecutorial misconduct not raised on appeal Habeas proceedings found counsel deficient but relief denied Rehearing granted on grounds of ineffective assistance and prosecutorial misconduct concern.

Key Cases Cited

  • Ex Parte Hawkins, 6 S.W.3d 554 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999) (unit of prosecution in assaultive offenses; multiple theories cited)
  • Ex Parte Rathmel, 717 S.W.2d 33 (Tex.Crim.App. 1986) (double jeopardy/unit of prosecution guidance)
  • Ex Parte Cavazos, 203 S.W.3d 333 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006) (precedent on unit of prosecution and related issues)
  • Ex Parte Brown, 205 S.W.3d 538 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006) (newly discovered evidence exception in habeas context)
  • Miles v. State, 259 S.W.3d 248 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008) (unit of prosecution; assaultive offenses and victims)
  • Roberts v. State, 795 S.W.2d 842 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1990) (proof linkage of kidnapping and assault to a single act)
  • Byrd v. State, 336 S.W.3d 242 (Tex.Crim.App. 2011) (unit of prosecution for assaultive offenses (robbery context))
  • Haight v. State, 103 S.W.3d 498 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2003) (agrees on unit of prosecution principles)
  • Sanabria v. United States, 437 U.S. 54 (U.S. 1978) (a single offense should normally be charged in one count; construct statute for unit of prosecution)
  • Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995) (actual innocence gateway for habeas review when evidence strengthens case)
  • Brown v. Ex , 205 S.W.3d 538 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006) ( Newly discovered evidence exception in habeas)
Read the full case