Soliz, Mark Anthony
2014 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 874
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2014Background
- Appellant Mark Anthony Soliz was convicted of capital murder for the intentional killing of Nancy Weatherly during a burglary/robbery; jury answered special issues and court sentenced him to death (automatic direct appeal).
- The murder was part of an eight‑day violent crime spree (robberies, shootings, burglaries) in June 2010 with accomplice Jose Ramos; the stolen green Stratus used in multiple offenses was recovered after a police pursuit and crash.
- Ramos implicated the Johnson County offense; detectives located Weatherly’s ransacked home and her body; she had been shot in the back of the head.
- Soliz gave recorded oral and two signed written statements admitting participation and, after wavering, admitting he shot Weatherly; co‑defendant/witness Estrada testified Soliz bragged about killing Weatherly and reenacted firing the gun.
- Forensic evidence: shell casing and bullet linked to a recovered Hi‑Point 9mm from the Stratus; Soliz’s latent fingerprint in Weatherly’s home; gunshot residue on clothing, hands, and bandanna.
- Trial rulings: court admitted Soliz’s statements (defense later offered the oral statement at trial), jury answered future‑dangerousness and mitigation special issues affirmatively; trial court denied multiple constitutional and evidentiary challenges; CCA affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Soliz) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for conviction | Confession plus corroborating physical and testimonial evidence proves guilt | Confession inadmissible; without it no proof he committed the Johnson County murder | Evidence sufficient; even considering inadmissible evidence, independent corroboration existed; confession alone would suffice; point overruled |
| Sufficiency for death (future dangerousness) | Facts of offense, history of violence, juvenile records, gang ties, drug use, in‑custody misconduct show continuing threat | Evidence of future dangerousness insufficient—prior records nonviolent and jail incidents nonviolent | Affirmed: rational juror could find probability of future violence; facts of offense and other evidence adequate |
| Admissibility of oral and written statements | Statements were voluntary and admissible; defense later offered oral statement at trial | Statements involuntary; admission violated constitutional and state statutory rights | Waiver: defense offered oral recording at trial (no objection), thus waived suppression error; written summaries admissible; points overruled |
| Partial fetal‑alcohol syndrome as Eighth Amendment bar | Argues PFAS causes permanent brain damage impairing judgment/impulse control; execution cruel and unusual | PFAS is mitigating evidence for jury evaluation but does not categorically bar death | Rejected: no evolving national consensus to bar execution for PFAS; evidence admissible for mitigation but jury properly weighed it; points overruled |
| Vagueness of mitigation special issue | Mitigating circumstances undefined; jury unable to properly consider life vs death | Texas precedent: jurors can understand and apply special‑issue language without further definition | Rejected; court declines to revisit precedent |
| 10–12 rule / jury instruction on holdouts | Jury misled about effect of single juror for life (Mills concern) | Rule risks arbitrary imposition by making individual juror think vote meaningless | Claim previously rejected; court rejects again |
| Burden of proof on punishment issues | Argues statute shifts burden to defendant to produce mitigation | Legislature and precedent allocate roles as in Art. 37.071; no unconstitutional shift | Rejected based on precedent |
| Ring/indictment failure to allege punishment issues | Capital sentencing findings are facts requiring jury determination | Indictment omission violated Ring | Rejected per Texas precedent; court declines to revisit |
| Arbitrary county‑by‑county death‑penalty charging | Disparate county practices produce wanton/freakish imposition | Capital charging disparities unconstitutional | Rejected; court adheres to precedent |
| Lethal‑injection protocol Eighth Amendment challenge | Protocol causes unnecessary pain and lingering death | Claim not ripe for review | Not ripe; point overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Neal v. State, 256 S.W.3d 264 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (court may consider even inadmissible evidence in sufficiency review)
- Fisher v. State, 851 S.W.2d 298 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (confession alone can suffice to prove guilt)
- Ex parte Thompson, 179 S.W.3d 549 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (inference of intent from deadly act)
- Cardenas v. State, 30 S.W.3d 384 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (briefing requirements; corroboration standard for confessions)
- Martinez v. State, 327 S.W.3d 727 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (standard for reviewing future‑dangerousness special issue)
- Druery v. State, 225 S.W.3d 491 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (society includes prison population for future‑dangerousness analysis)
- Wilkerson v. State, 881 S.W.2d 321 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (prior violent acts and drug abuse relevant to future dangerousness)
- Williams v. State, 273 S.W.3d 200 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (gang membership as evidence of future dangerousness)
- Mason v. State, 905 S.W.2d 570 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (same)
- Decker v. State, 717 S.W.2d 903 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (offering confession at trial waives suppression error)
- Ex parte Moore, 395 S.W.3d 152 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (defendant’s affirmative non‑objection waives error)
- Coble v. State, 330 S.W.3d 253 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (admission of derivative written statements following oral confession)
- Broussard v. State, 910 S.W.2d 952 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (brain‑damage evidence admissible as mitigation)
- Ladd v. State, 3 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (rejecting vagueness challenge to mitigation issue)
- Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367 (U.S. 1988) (jury unanimity and influence concerns in capital sentencing)
- Threadgill v. State, 146 S.W.3d 654 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (rejecting various challenges to Texas death‑penalty scheme)
- Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (U.S. 2002) (jury must find aggravating factual elements)
- Gonzales v. State, 353 S.W.3d 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (lethal‑injection challenges may be not ripe)