White, Garcia Glen, WR-48,152-08

Background

Garcia Glen White was convicted of capital murder in Harris County (cause no. 723847) and sentenced to death after a jury answered the special issues accordingly. DNA from the complainant matched White and he gave videotaped confessions implicating himself.
Post-conviction DNA retesting (Identigene and later lab testing) showed White could not be excluded as the primary donor of epithelial and sperm DNA on crime-scene items; testing also indicated potential additional contributors.
White has filed multiple state and federal habeas petitions; the Court of Criminal Appeals and federal courts previously denied or dismissed successive petitions. His execution was scheduled for January 28, 2015.
On January 20, 2015 White filed a fourth subsequent state habeas application asserting three claims: (1) his invocation of counsel should receive greater deference because of limited intellectual functioning; (2) newly discovered DNA retesting undermines culpability and counsel’s strategy; and (3) newly discovered scientific mitigation evidence (drug effects) would have affected sentencing.
The State moved to dismiss the application under Texas Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.071, § 5 as an improper successive writ and alternatively argued each claim lacks merit.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Successive-writ threshold under Art. 11.071 §5	White argues new/increased deference to invocation-of-counsel claim based on IQ and new expert reports justifies another application	State: claims are repeat, previously considered, and §5 bars another successive application	Court treated claim as successive and State urges dismissal under §5; additionally claim meritless on the merits
2. Invocation of counsel / intellectual functioning	White: limited intellectual capacity (IQ ~78) means his waiver/invocation of counsel needed greater deference and may have been involuntary	State: prior courts considered the same evidence; Averill’s report does not show inability to invoke counsel; Hall/Atkins do not entitle him to reopen; he fails Briseno prongs	Court (via State motion) finds claim is procedurally barred as repetitive and without merit on substance
3. Post-conviction DNA retesting / actual innocence	White: 2003–2004 and later testing show an unknown third-party DNA contributor; this undermines guilt and would have changed counsel’s trial strategy	State: DNA retests actually confirm White as contributor and ejaculator; trial testimony already acknowledged possible third contributor; retesting does not exculpate White	Court (as argued by State) treats claim as successive and meritless because retesting is inculpatory and was not newly contradictory of trial evidence
4. Newly discovered mitigation (drug/neurological evidence)	White: 2015 neuropharmacologist report on cocaine/marijuana effects would have provided mitigating evidence at punishment	State: report is cumulative, speculative, based only on earlier reports (Silverman, Averill), not new, and counsel’s affidavit offers no reversible prejudice	Court (per State motion) finds the mitigation claim barred as successive and, alternatively, without merit

Key Cases Cited

Delao v. State, 235 S.W.3d 235 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (totality-of-circumstances voluntariness standard applies even when defendant has mental impairment)
Bell v. State, 582 S.W.2d 800 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (confessions admissible from defendants with mild mental retardation under appropriate circumstances)
Casias v. State, 452 S.W.2d 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1970) (admission of confession from defendant with low literacy/IQ upheld)
Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) (execution of intellectually disabled persons unconstitutional)
Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (capital punishment unconstitutional for crimes committed under age 18)
Ex parte Briseno, 135 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (three-prong Texas test for mental retardation in death-penalty cases)
Ex parte Blue, 230 S.W.3d 151 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (successive-writ limitations apply to Atkins-type claims)
Mays v. Stephens, 757 F.3d 211 (5th Cir. 2014) (Hall did not alter Fifth Circuit’s application of Briseno in Texas)