In re Allen
2015 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 592
Tex. Crim. App.2015Background
- Tyrone Allen, charged in two capital-murder indictments, moved for a pretrial judicial hearing to determine whether he is intellectually disabled and therefore ineligible for the death penalty.
- The trial judge granted Allen’s motions for pretrial intellectual-disability hearings but had not yet held the hearings or made final determinations.
- The State sought mandamus; the Dallas Court of Appeals conditionally granted relief, holding the trial judge lacked authority to grant pretrial hearings on that issue.
- Allen petitioned this Court for mandamus review; the Court of Criminal Appeals conditionally granted relief to Allen, directing the court of appeals to rescind its mandamus judgment.
- The majority concluded existing statutes and case law are ambiguous about whether intellectual-disability findings must be made by a jury or when they must be decided, so the trial judge’s grant of a pretrial hearing was not a clear ministerial violation; the opinion urges the Legislature to adopt a uniform statutory scheme.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May a trial judge hold a pretrial evidentiary hearing to decide intellectual disability (Atkins claim) before conviction? | Allen: judge may, to streamline punishment issues and protect Eighth Amendment rights; no statute plainly forbids pretrial hearings. | State: such determinations are factual sentencing issues tied to conviction and must await jury sentencing or post-conviction process. | Held: Court refused to declare the judge’s action ministerially forbidden; pretrial hearing not clearly barred given statutory and precedential ambiguity. |
| Is a jury the exclusive factfinder for intellectual-disability determinations in capital cases? | Allen: not required; precedent permits judge or jury; no constitutional mandate for jury. | State: Articles of Code and practice (special issues before trial jury) require jury to decide factual punishment issues, including intellectual disability. | Held: There is no clear, unequivocal law mandating a jury-only determination; jury finding not constitutionally required. |
| Is mandamus appropriate to compel reversal of the trial judge’s order (ministerial-act standard)? | State: yes — the trial judge exceeded authority and mandamus is proper. | Allen: no — the law is unsettled so the judge’s discretion was not a ministerial violation. | Held: Mandamus not warranted because the second prong (clear, ministerial right) is not met; court of appeals’ mandamus was rescinded conditionally. |
| Do doctrine of ripeness or mootness (successor judge) preclude review or require abatement? | State/Alcala dissent: successor judge change rendered proceedings moot; abate to allow successor to reconsider. | Allen/majority: change of judge does not eliminate controversy; Court may address mandamus posture and merits. | Held: Majority declined to abate; rejected mootness argument and addressed merits on mandamus standard. |
Key Cases Cited
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) (Eighth Amendment bars execution of intellectually disabled offenders; states must develop enforcement procedures)
- Ex parte Briseno, 135 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (Texas court’s interim guidelines defining mental retardation for Atkins claims)
- Hunter v. State, 243 S.W.3d 664 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (reiterating that jury determination of mental retardation is not constitutionally required; denial of pretrial judge hearing upheld)
- State ex rel. Lykos v. Fine, 330 S.W.3d 904 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (mandamus considerations where pretrial relief would improperly decide matters contingent on later trial outcomes)
- Schriro v. Smith, 546 U.S. 6 (2005) (federal limits on requiring jury trial procedure for state-developed Atkins procedures)