in Re State of Texas Ex Rel. Brian Risinger, Relator
2015 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1414
Tex. Crim. App.2015Background
- Raphael Deon Holiday was convicted of three capital murders; after direct and initial state habeas review, federal habeas was denied and an execution date was set for November 18, 2015.
- Holiday contested that his federally appointed habeas counsel had effectively ceased representation; attempts to appoint substitute federal counsel were denied by the district court and the Fifth Circuit.
- On the morning of the scheduled execution, trial counsel Frank Blazek and William Carter filed a state-court "motion to withdraw or modify" the execution date so Holiday could pursue a subsequent state habeas application and clemency; the trial court granted the motion and withdrew the warrant.
- The State filed an emergency petition for writ of mandamus in the Court of Criminal Appeals the same day; the Court granted relief and held the trial court lacked authority under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 43.141(d)(1) to withdraw the warrant absent a filed subsequent or untimely Article 11.071 application.
- Because Blazek and Carter’s filings were on the execution day and therefore untimely under the Court’s Misc. Rule 11-003, the Court ordered them to appear and show cause why they should not be sanctioned; separate concurrence and dissent explain disagreement about (a) the trial court’s authority and (b) appropriateness of sanctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Holiday/Trial Ct./Counsel) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a trial court may withdraw or modify a death warrant under Art. 43.141(d)(1) when no subsequent or untimely Article 11.071 application has been filed | Art. 43.141(d)(1) requires an application be filed; absent a filed 11.071 application the trial court lacked authority to withdraw the warrant | The motion’s substance presented grounds for a subsequent 11.071 application; the trial court may consider substance and withdraw under its statutory or inherent authority | Court (majority): Trial court lacked authority absent a filed subsequent/untimely Article 11.071 application; withdrawal was void |
| Whether the State was entitled to mandamus relief overturning the trial court’s withdrawal order | Mandamus appropriate because the State had no adequate remedy at law and the trial court’s action conflicted with clear statutory command | Trial court’s action was discretionary and not clearly contrary to settled law; mandamus should be denied | Court (majority): Granted mandamus (statutory text and precedent compelled relief); concurrence agreed on statutory basis but raised other concerns; dissent would have denied mandamus |
| Whether the trial court or counsel can rely on inherent equitable authority to withdraw execution to address counsel abandonment / to permit new post-conviction proceedings | Statute limits withdrawal authority; inherent authority cannot override Art. 43.141’s text | Trial court has inherent plenary power to preserve fairness where counsel abandoned client; Staley may not preclude such equitable relief | Court (majority): Statutory text controls; inherent authority insufficient here in light of precedent (Staley); concurrence acknowledged the equitable concern but concurred with statutory ruling |
| Whether counsel’s execution-day filing violated Misc. Rule 11-003 and warrants sanctions | Rule requires a sworn good-cause showing for untimely execution-related pleadings; Blazek and Carter’s certificates failed to show physical/legal/factual impossibility—sanctions may be warranted | Counsel stepped in at last minute to protect an abandoned client and had reasonable cause to file; sanctions would chill pro bono representation | Court: Ordered Blazek and Carter to appear and show cause why they should not be sanctioned for inadequate justification of untimely filings (show-cause order issued); dissent urged against sanctions |
Key Cases Cited
- Eichelberger v. Eichelberger, 582 S.W.2d 395 (Tex. 1979) (recognizes inherent powers of courts to aid exercise of jurisdiction and administer justice)
- Staley v. State, 420 S.W.3d 785 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (limits a trial court’s exercise of inherent authority where statute provides the exclusive authorization)
- In re Weeks, 391 S.W.3d 117 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (mandamus standard: no adequate remedy at law and clear right to relief)
- In re Bonilla, 424 S.W.3d 528 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (clarifies ‘‘clear right’’ standard for mandamus relief)
- Greenwell v. Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth Judicial Dist., 159 S.W.3d 645 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explains when an available legal remedy may nonetheless be inadequate)
- Ex parte Henderson, 246 S.W.3d 690 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (addresses subsequent writ practice and illustrates that trial-court withdrawal orders may be treated separately from habeas merits)
- Kelly v. State, 676 S.W.2d 104 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (discusses trial-court authority over execution judgments)
- De Leon v. Aguilar, 127 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (explains that delay or expense alone does not render an appellate remedy inadequate)