Meine, Todd
WR-82,972-01
| Tex. App. | Mar 11, 2015Background
- Applicant Todd Meine was tried by a jury in Nueces County and convicted of two counts of aggravated assault of a public servant and two counts of attempted capital murder; sentences included two 99‑year terms and life sentences on other counts.
- The 13th Court of Appeals reversed and vacated the convictions as to the two aggravated‑assault counts on double‑jeopardy grounds, affirmed other issues, and both parties’ PDRs were refused by the Court of Criminal Appeals.
- Meine filed a pro se Art. 11.07 habeas application arguing (inter alia) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to quash a facially defective indictment, failing to obtain an intoxication/insanity expert, and failing to obtain lesser‑included instructions; he also alleges prosecutorial misconduct and an inadequate record.
- Meine contends his acute alcohol toxicity (post‑incident BAC .314) and injuries supported an insanity‑by‑intoxication defense and mitigation, which trial counsel failed to develop through expert testimony.
- Relief sought includes a new trial (or other habeas relief), expansion of the record by evidentiary hearing, and findings that his convictions and confinement are legally defective.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to quash defective indictment) | Meine: counsel was deficient for not challenging a facially defective indictment that produced double‑jeopardy harm; but for counsel’s failure a different outcome (new trial) would have occurred. | State denies or disputes the factual and legal sufficiency of Meine’s claims (answered in supplemental answer). | Filing requests habeas relief; court has not resolved these claims in this reply (relief requested). |
| Failure to obtain intoxication/insanity expert | Meine: counsel should have retained an expert to explain severe alcohol‑related psychosis/delirium, undermining mens rea and supporting insanity‑by‑intoxication and lesser‑included instructions. | State contends the record does not support Meine’s allegations or that the claimed deficits would change the verdict. | Applicant requests hearing/new trial; court ruling not included in this filing. |
| Double jeopardy / defective indictment & amendment | Meine: the clerk’s record shows re‑indictment adding aggravated‑assault counts that violated double jeopardy; trial court abused discretion by allowing prosecution of a defective charging instrument. | State previously defended the charging instrument on appeal; COA partially remedied matter by reversing two assault convictions. | COA vacated two assault convictions; Meine seeks broader relief (new trial/acquittal) — unresolved in this habeas reply. |
| Insufficiency of evidence & inadequate record / request for evidentiary hearing | Meine: existing record is incomplete (prosecutor’s file withheld); factual disputes require an evidentiary hearing to develop Brady/Griffin material and prove claims. | State asserts the record does not support Meine’s contentions and denies withheld material claims. | Meine requests expansion of the record and an evidentiary hearing; court’s decision on that request is not reflected in this filing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. McCormick, 914 F.2d 1115 (9th Cir. 1990) (affidavits alone may be inadequate to resolve IAC; evidentiary development may be required)
- Anderson v. Collins, 338 F.3d 382 (5th Cir. 2003) (counsel’s duty to investigate circumstances and present mitigating/defense evidence)
- Barrientes v. Johnson, 221 F.3d 741 (5th Cir. 2000) (evidentiary hearing may be necessary to establish habeas factual allegations)
- Webber v. State, 29 S.W.3d 226 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000) (fundamental error in jury charge deprives defendant of fair trial)
- Miles v. State, 204 S.W.3d 822 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (federal constitutional error contributes to verdict if it materially affects jury deliberations)
- Goodspeed v. State, 187 S.W.3d 390 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (extreme attorney conduct can demonstrate deficiency)
- Brecht v. Abrahamson, 113 S. Ct. 1710 (1993) (harmless‑error standard for federal habeas relief; prejudice inquiry)
- Buchanan v. Kentucky, 107 S. Ct. 2906 (1987) (mental‑status evidence may bear on mens rea and related defenses)