Medina, Hector Rolando
2011 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1371
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2011Background
- Medina was convicted of capital murder in Oct 2008 and sentenced to death after the jury answered the Article 37.071 issues; this Court affirmed on direct appeal, including a rejection of ineffective assistance during punishment for lack of record evidence.
- Habeas counsel Robin Norris filed a short document he asserted was a writ of habeas corpus, but it contained only conclusory statements and no specific facts or exhibits.
- The State and trial judge recognized the filing was not a proper writ application under Article 11.071; the State offered to forfeit some response time to address merits, but the filing remained deficient.
- The Court required Norris to appear and explain conduct; Norris admitted a good-faith belief that his pleading sufficed but acknowledged no factual specifics were provided.
- Under the pleading deficiency, the Court concluded the filing was not a cognizable writ application and proceeded under Article 11.071, §4A to appoint new counsel and set a new filing date, while dismissing pro se amendments and sanctioning the former counsel.
- The decision emphasizes the mandatory factual pleading standards for habeas petitions and cites Kerr, Maldonado, and other authorities to justify dismissing the non-application and reissuing with proper counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Norris's filing was a proper Article 11.071 writ application | Norris believed the pleading satisfied habeas grounds without factual specifics | Texas law requires specific factual allegations to support relief | No; the filing was not a proper writ application. |
| Remedy when filing is not a proper writ application | Court should consider merits under 11.071 | Proceed under §4A to appoint new counsel | Appoint new counsel and establish a new filing date under §4A. |
| Whether the Sixth Amendment ineffective-assistance claim could be addressed without facts | Legal claim asserts denial of effective counsel | Requires supporting facts for relief | Not addressed on merits; requires proper factual pleading. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Kerr, 977 S.W.2d 585 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (death-penalty writs must seek relief from a death sentence; non-application cavets rejected)
- Ex parte Maldonado, 688 S.W.2d 114 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (posting requires specific facts, not bare conclusions of law)
- Ex parte Kerr, 64 S.W.3d 414 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (original filing not a writ; Kerr remand for true writ application when appropriate)
- Ex parte Carr, 511 S.W.2d 523 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974) (cited for notion that petitions must present substantive grounds and facts)
- Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644 (U.S. 2005) (heightened pleading standards in habeas petitions; need facts)