in Re: Craig Watkins
05-14-01167-CV
| Tex. App. | May 13, 2015Background
- Tyrone Allen faces two capital-murder indictments; he filed pretrial motions asking the trial judge to determine he is intellectually disabled and therefore ineligible for the death penalty.
- The trial judge granted Allen’s motions to hold pretrial intellectual-disability hearings but has not yet conducted the hearings or made a final determination.
- The State sought mandamus relief; the Dallas Court of Appeals granted mandamus, concluding the judge lacked authority to decide the issue pretrial and that the jury must decide the factual question.
- Allen petitioned this Court for mandamus relief from the court of appeals’ judgment; this Court reviewed whether mandamus was appropriate to compel a particular ruling.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals held mandamus was improper because the issue whether a judge may decide intellectual disability pretrial is not controlled by clear, unequivocal law; the absence of statutory guidance leaves room for judicial discretion.
- The Court emphasized the need for legislative action to create a uniform procedural scheme for intellectual-disability determinations in death-penalty cases.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a trial judge may hold a pretrial intellectual-disability hearing and decide the issue | Allen: judge may adjudicate pretrial; such a hearing affects mitigation, experts, voir dire and is not precluded by statute | State: statutes and procedure require the jury to decide factual issues affecting punishment; judge exceeded authority | Court: No clear, controlling law mandates denial; judge’s action falls within judicial discretion — mandamus inappropriate |
| Whether the court of appeals correctly issued mandamus to compel a particular ruling | State: court of appeals correctly found judge acted without authority and mandamus was proper | Allen: absence of explicit statutory scheme means judge had discretion; mandamus not justified | Court: court of appeals erred — State did not show a clear right to relief required for mandamus |
| Whether existing Code provisions (Art. 37.071 §2; Arts. 1.13, 1.14, 36.13) mandate jury as sole factfinder for intellectual disability | State: combined statutory language requires jury factfinding on punishment issues, including intellectual disability | Allen: statutes do not expressly govern how intellectual-disability claims are litigated; they do not compel denial of pretrial judicial resolution | Court: statutes are ambiguous/insufficient; cannot be read to unquestionably command denial of pretrial judicial determinations |
| Whether mandamus should be used to create or clarify the procedure for Atkins claims | State: mandamus appropriate to enforce existing procedural limits | Allen: legislative guidance lacking; mandamus is not the forum to create law | Court: mandamus inappropriate to craft procedural law; Legislature must address the gap |
Key Cases Cited
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) (Eighth Amendment bars execution of intellectually disabled defendants; states retain authority to develop procedures)
- Ex parte Briseno, 135 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (Texas interim definition/guidelines for mental retardation in death-penalty context; jury not constitutionally required to decide disability)
- Hunter v. State, 243 S.W.3d 664 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (judge did not err denying pretrial judicial determination of mental retardation; timing and factfinder unresolved by statute)
- State ex rel. Lykos v. Fine, 330 S.W.3d 904 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (mandamus limitations and procedural posture concerning death-penalty challenges)
- Bowen v. Carnes, 343 S.W.3d 805 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (standards for mandamus review and ministerial-act requirement)