Pruett, Robert Lynn, WR-62,099-05

Background

Robert Lynn Pruett convicted in 2002 of the 1999 capital murder of correctional officer Daniel Nagle; conviction rested largely on inmate testimony and an expert’s physical "match" of masking tape fragments.
No fingerprints or defendant DNA linked Pruett to the weapon; torn disciplinary report (motive evidence) contained only the victim’s DNA.
Pruett filed multiple post-conviction habeas applications; earlier applications were denied or dismissed. A trial court previously found discovery and constitutional violations and recommended a new trial.
Pruett’s current application invokes Art. 11.073 (new scientific evidence) asserting that a 2009 NAS report discredited the physical-comparison methodology used to match tape fragments.
He also alleges due-process violations from false or undisclosed deals with inmate witnesses and ineffective assistance by prior habeas counsel for failing to raise trial counsel claims and other newly discovered mitigation evidence.
The Court (majority) dismissed the current Art. 11.073 claim as an abuse of the writ under procedural bars and denied a stay of execution; Justice Alcala dissents, urging a stay and remand to resolve statutory-timeliness and merits issues.

Issues

Issue	Pruett's Argument	State/Court Argument	Held
Whether Art. 11.073 new-science claim merits consideration (stay/remand)	NAS report shows the tape-match science is discredited; had jurors known, conviction unlikely	Court says claim untimely/abuse of writ because evidence existed in 2009 and prior counsel could have raised it	Majority: dismissed as abuse of writ; stay denied
Whether relevant scientific evidence was "ascertainable" with reasonable diligence under Art. 11.073(c)/(d)	The statute requires factual finding and remand; issuance date of report alone does not prove ascertainability	Court treated the 2009 report as ascertainable earlier and applied procedural bar	Majority: procedural bar applied; Alcala: remand needed for factual finding
Whether prior use of inmate testimony and undisclosed/deal-influenced testimony violates due process (reopen prior application)	Inmates gave false testimony and deals/assaults affecting witnesses were undisclosed; legislative changes recognize inmate testimony as inherently unreliable	Court previously dismissed subsequent claims under Art. 11.071 §5(a) as procedurally barred	Majority: prior application dismissal stands; Alcala: would sua sponte reopen and remand
Whether ineffective assistance of habeas counsel warrants reopening (to raise trial counsel ineffectiveness/mitigation)	Habeas counsel failed to raise meritorious trial counsel and mitigation claims that emerged after trial	Court found subsequent-application bar applies to these claims	Majority: dismissal upheld; Alcala: would reopen and remand for merits review

Key Cases Cited

Ex parte Pruett, 207 S.W.3d 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (trial court findings and prior habeas proceedings discussed)
Ex parte Buck, 418 S.W.3d 98 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (discussion referenced re: ineffective assistance and procedural bars)