Petetan, US Carnell Jr. A/K/A Carnell Petetan, Jr.
AP-77,038
| Tex. Crim. App. | Mar 8, 2017Background
- Appellant Carnell Petetan was convicted by a jury of capital murder for killing his wife Kimberly; jury answered punishment special issues so as to impose death. Court modified judgment to reflect conviction is a capital felony and affirmed otherwise.
- Facts: Petetan traveled to Waco, forced Kimberly and her daughter A.W. into a vehicle at gunpoint, transported them, returned to Kimberly’s apartment, prevented their escape, and shot Kimberly three times; multiple eyewitnesses (A.W., Miller, Kerrie) and post-arrest statements implicated Petetan.
- Petetan conceded initial burglary and kidnapping but argued the kidnapping was temporally and causally too remote to support capital murder; State argued the kidnapping continued through confinement immediately prior to the shooting.
- Petetan raised Atkins/intellectual-disability claims; multiple IQ and adaptive-functioning tests produced mixed results (IQ scores ranging ~52–74), with experts for both sides and extensive lay testimony about his childhood, schooling, prison conduct, and adult functioning.
- Procedural: competency hearing held pre-trial; Petetan challenged trial rulings excluding certain testimony at competency hearing, admission of some extraneous-evidence and a jailhouse witness (Ali) testifying at punishment, and multiple jury-selection rulings. Court reviewed legal and factual sufficiency on mental-retardation and other claims and overruled most points of error.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that murder occurred in course of kidnapping (capital-murder predicate) | Petetan: kidnapping and other predicate crimes were too temporally/causally remote from shooting to support capital murder. | State: kidnapping was continuous—he used threats to move and confine Kimberly and A.W., thwarted escape immediately before shooting; evidence supports nexus. | Held: Evidence legally sufficient; kidnapping continued and murder occurred during kidnapping. Point overruled. |
| Atkins / mental retardation (legal and factual sufficiency of jury’s "no" finding) | Petetan: IQ and adaptive deficits meet Atkins; experts diagnosed mild intellectual disability; jury’s negative finding against great weight of evidence. | State: mixed and unreliable testing (malingering concerns, effort variability), educational/behavioral evidence and criminal sophistication rebut disability; Briseno factors weigh against disability. | Held: Jury’s negative finding on intellectual disability is supported legally and factually; points 10 and 11 overruled. |
| Exclusion at competency hearing of Schwieger testimony about how Petetan understood counsel (attorney-client communications) | Petetan: excluded Schwieger testimony showing difficulty communicating and need for graphic terms; relevant to incompetency. | State: attorney-client privilege; low intelligence alone does not establish incompetency; evidence not probative of incompetency. | Held: Exclusion proper; low intelligence alone insufficient to show incompetency; any error harmless. Point 1 overruled. |
| Denial of challenges for cause to venire members biased against life-without-parole and favoring death | Petetan: prospective jurors (Hester, Fore) expressed strong anti-LWOP/death-leaning bias making them unfit. | State/Trial court: both jurors said they could follow law and special-issue framework and keep open mind; vacillation resolved by court. | Held: Trial court did not abuse discretion; challenges for cause denied properly. Points 3–5 overruled. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (legal-sufficiency standard for criminal convictions)
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (execution of intellectually disabled violates Eighth Amendment)
- Briseno v. State, 135 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (Texas guidelines/factors for assessing intellectual disability)
- Ex parte Moore, 470 S.W.3d 481 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (Atkins and state procedures discussion)
- Davis v. State, 313 S.W.3d 317 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (unanimity and capital murder jury-charge principles; disjunctive predicate theories)
- Kitchens v. State, 823 S.W.2d 256 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (jury unanimity in capital cases)