620 S.W.3d 830
Tex. Crim. App.2021Background
- Raymond George Riles has been on Texas death row for over 40 years for a 1974 capital murder; multiple psychiatric evaluations (1988, 1991, 1993, 2005) and informal TDCJ reports indicate he is incompetent to be executed.
- Habeas counsel filed an Article 11.071 application seeking a new punishment trial, arguing Riles was sentenced under a pre-Penry scheme that did not allow jurors to give mitigating effect to his severe mental illness.
- The Court granted relief and ordered a new punishment trial under Penry principles.
- The dissent (Slaughter, J.) agrees the Penry claim is meritorious but raises procedural and autonomy concerns: the record lacks evidence that Riles had capacity to consent to habeas counsel’s representation or that anyone with legal authority authorized the filing.
- The dissent warns that granting relief will likely transfer Riles from TDCJ to county custody, trigger competency proceedings, possible hospitalization, and repeated institutional transfers; remaining on death row might in practice prevent execution given his incompetence.
- The dissent urges remand to the trial court to determine consent/authorization and to consider appointing a guardian ad litem or attorney ad litem to protect Riles’s best interests before proceeding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Riles is entitled to a new punishment trial under pre-Penry sentencing | Riles: jury instructions/scheme prevented jurors from giving mitigating effect to mental-illness evidence (Penry claim) | State: (implicitly) sentencing scheme applied; likely disputes prejudicialness | Court granted relief (new punishment trial); dissent agrees merits of Penry claim |
| Whether habeas counsel had Riles’s informed consent or legal authorization to file the petition | Riles’s counsel asserts authority to represent Riles and filed application on his behalf | No evidence in the record that Riles consented or that a guardian/power of attorney authorized filing | Majority proceeded and granted relief; dissent would not grant without proof of consent or authorization and would remand |
| Whether a guardian ad litem / attorney ad litem should be appointed before proceeding | Counsel: zealous representation is needed for incompetent inmates | State/court: proceeded to adjudicate claim without appointing guardian ad litem | Court granted relief; dissent recommends remand for trial-court factfinding and consideration of appointing guardian ad litem or attorney ad litem to protect Riles’s autonomy and best interests |
Key Cases Cited
- Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 (holding that inadequate jury instructions that prevent consideration of mitigating evidence warrant a new punishment trial)
- Ex parte Gallo, 448 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (attorney must have applicant’s informed consent or equivalent authorization before filing post-conviction habeas application)