Rodgers, Warren Keith
541 S.W.3d 824
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2017Background
- Applicant Warren Keith Rodgers was indicted for murder with two counts that in fact alleged alternate methods (railroad track placement and vehicular run-over) of killing the same victim; they should have been paragraphs charging alternate manners of the same offense.
- At trial the court submitted a single offense with two alternative methods; the jury returned a single guilty verdict, the court pronounced one sentence, and the habeas court found one conviction.
- The written judgment, however, includes a parenthetical listing “two counts” next to the cause number, and TDCJ is treating the judgment as two convictions.
- Rodgers filed a subsequent application for habeas corpus claiming actual innocence, ineffective assistance, and a double-jeopardy violation from being treated as convicted of two murders for the same death.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals concluded the application is a subsequent writ and declined to reach the merits because Rodgers did not meet either statutory exception to the subsequent-writ bar; it directed that the clerical error is properly corrected by a judgment nunc pro tunc.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Rodgers) | Defendant's Argument (State/TDCJ) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the habeas claim is barred as a subsequent application | Rodgers raises double-jeopardy/innocence claim now and seeks relief on habeas | The application is a subsequent writ and the statute bars consideration absent an exception | Barred — Rodgers did not meet statutory exceptions to a subsequent writ |
| Whether double jeopardy bars treating the judgment as two convictions for the same death | Two convictions for the same victim violate double jeopardy | The error is clerical in the judgment and the merits are not cognizable in a subsequent habeas | Court did not reach merits due to procedural bar; remedy is nunc pro tunc to correct judgment |
| Whether Rodgers meets the "new basis" exception to Article 11.07 §4 | TDCJ’s current treatment as two convictions is a new factual basis unavailable earlier | The factual/legal bases (double-jeopardy law and clerical-correction remedies) were available before | Not met — factual and legal bases were available earlier |
| Whether Rodgers meets the "innocence-gateway" exception | The double‑jeopardy treatment renders conviction(s) constitutionally invalid such that no rational juror could have convicted | The alleged multiple-punishment violation arises at judgment entry (after guilt) and thus does not fit the innocence-gateway timing | Not met — court follows Ex parte St. Aubin plurality: multiple-punishments double-jeopardy claim fails the innocence gateway |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinez v. State, 225 S.W.3d 550 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (distinguishing counts and paragraphs; separate offenses vs. alternate statutory methods)
- Davis v. State, 313 S.W.3d 317 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (alternate legal theories treated as same offense when appropriate)
- Johnson v. State, 364 S.W.3d 292 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (alternate factual theories can be the same offense)
- Ex parte Ervin, 991 S.W.2d 804 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (murder variants against same victim constitute same offense for double jeopardy)
- Blanton v. State, 369 S.W.3d 894 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (trial court may use judgment nunc pro tunc to correct clerical discrepancies between pronounced and recorded judgment)