*1 Applicant explicitly requests overrule Evans “to the extent that it regard- misadvice
requires that counsel’s incorporated in the parole eligibility be
ing He relies much
plea agreement.” precedent that this Court federal same (but rejected) in footnote essentially
cited
four of the Evans opinion, at in our reason- n. but asserts no flaw distinguish his case. We
ing nor facts that decline to overrule respectfully
therefore Evans. opinion modify
or this Court’s deny must relief. JOHNSON, JJ., concurred
PRICE & judgment.
HOLCOMB, J., participating. Ricky Eugene
Ex
KERR, Applicant. 35,065-04.
No. Appeals of Texas.
Court of Criminal 2, 2002.
Jan. pa- the time frame from counsel about guilty plea. Factors such as the time of a event, appellant prison, pa- the com- eligibility conduct of about an is then role board, parole occurrence, position and attitude of role, any, can- whose time of prison system, the population of the accurately guessed at. not even be governor, identity and attitude of parole eligibility and Any between correlation etc., time,” "good all regulations governing even fur- has diminished parole attainment decides to yet be when the defendant parte Carillo. years Ex in the 16 since ther guilty. [sic] erroneous advise plead *2 case, Mr. contends that current Kerr his procedurally barred is not Section 11.071,1 prohib- generally 5 of article subsequent its the consideration of writs. argues He for writ of his 6, 2000, on corpus August should be considered on its merits for ei- 1) original filing ther of two reasons: his was not a true writ that attacked his con- sentence; or viction or his habe- attorney provide did not effective assis- tance of counsel and thus he is entitled to go-around. reject a second the second rationale, agree but we with the first. We applicant’s original filing conclude was not an for a writ of habeas corpus as defined under article application August therefore his timely is his initial writ. We consider it today’s filed as of date.
I. 16, 1995, jury On November found applicant guilty capital murder for the double murders of Elizabeth McDaniel and Gary jury her son Barbier. The then an statutorily special swered the mandated punishment issues in a manner which re quired the trial court to assess sentence appeal of death. Direct to this Court was 18, 1997, automatic. On June this Court applicant’s affirmed conviction and death Schonemann, Austin, Raoul D. Ap- unpublished opinion. in an sentence State pellant. Kerr, 72,261 (Tex.Crim.App. v. No. June DA, Shaughnessy, Edward Asst. San 18, 1997). Antonio, Paul, Atty., Matthew State’s Aus- Meanwhile, appointed ap- this Court had tin, for State. plicant attorney represent him for purposes a habeas ORDER pursuant July to article 11.071. On J., COCHRAN, delivered 'the order 1997, that original habeas counsel filed Court, MEYERS, PRICE, joined by convicting document with the court enti- WOMACK, HOLCOMB, JJ. “Application tled for Post-Conviction Writ “subsequent” application for a Corpus Brought of Habeas Pursuant writ of habeas in a death Article 11.071 of the Texas Code of Crimi- (Vernon 1. Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Art. 11.071 cle” refer to the Code of Criminal Procedure Supp.2001). All future to an references "arti- unless otherwise noted. However, duly denied with that recommendation that document nal Procedure.” not, fact, actually sought. for a a true relief because none was claimed, corpus under article much Applicant writ of habeas had not less applicant’s to, not attack did from himself entitled relief shown or sentence. murder conviction death Ex conviction or sentence. *3 jurisdictional or Kerr, 35,065-01 raised no constitutional No. Ricky Eugene fair- concerning the fundamental claims September delivered (Tex.Crim.App. accuracy the of the trial or ness Price, J.J., (Meyers & (unpublished) Instead, at- this document of the verdict. a Judge Baird wrote participating). constitutionality the of the habeas tacked denial be- to this Court’s short dissent4 as corpus statutory scheme itself embodied personally had written cause type deriva- in 11.071. But that article August the clerk of this Court on letter to a death row claim does not entitle tive that he was entitled complaining any “relief from a inmate “investigate to habeas counsel who would The con- of death.”2 legal grounds which would any factual and this fact her victing trial court noted from convic- possibly supported [sic] relief 12, 1997, Findings of Fact August im- Applicant tion and death sentence.” concerning applicant’s Law Conclusions of grave the dilemma mediately recognized filing: original docu- “writ” that the any raised is- petitioner The has not posed: ment favor, sues, which if resolved his only one has filed [Habeas counsel] trial, or a entitle him to a new would relief, essentially challenging claim for sentencing hearing. petitioner The new of Art. 11.071 unitary process review attack- any claims brought has not forth (Vernon Supp. Ann. Proc. Code Crim. or sen- ing legality of his conviction 1997). this is a I don’t know whether tence. issue, I do know under all but debatable prevent repeated laws” the “new habeas makes sole claim for relief Petitioner’s coun- very important that and it is writs claim, falls express implied, or no thorough possible. as sel be as types parameters within the I would [habeas counsel] am sure can form the basis for error [which] at least research the records He has not dem- post-conviction relief. (which he is re- investigated the facts evidentiary need for an onstrated the do) presented he could have quire[d] to petitioner contrary, on the hearing, writ of habe- complete post conviction that no finding from this Court seeks I am corpus, face[d] as now issues exist.3 contested factual all state and loosing possibility [sic] comply request. will with this claims. federal constitutional understandably, trial court rec- Quite scholar, legal but may not be Applicant habe- that “this ommended recognize that the document he could respects.” even denied all relief be on his order, counsel filed original habeas Court, agreed his per in a curiam This attacking statute on process the habeas claim Proc. Art. 1. 2. Tex.Code Crim. its face. his motion from the context of It is clear finding sought applicant’s counsel the Court's 4.Judge dissented to Overstreet there were no it was his stance that opinion. written denial but without due issues relevant to his contested factual Court, appears ap- behalf was not an for a writ of ... that this charade, corpus attacking proving punishing ap- murder such a State, plicant, rewarding per- conviction or death sentence. haps attorneys encouraging even other relief, After this Court denied habeas perfunctory “non-applications.” to file the trial court set an execution date for non-application certainly Such a makes February Shortly before everyone need for the easier on —no appointed day, applicant filed a “Motion State, attorney, or this Court Execution, for Stay Application for Writ potential any- challenges consider V, Corpus of Habeas Art. Pursuant to Sec. thing happened at trial. Neverthe- or, 5 of the Texas in the Constitution less, provided Legislature has con- *4 Alternative, Judg- Motion to Vacate Prior capital right victed defendants with the Appointment Competent ment and for challenges by to make such habeas cor- Counsel Pursuant to Tex. Proc. Code Crim. pus application. Art. 11.071.”5 This Court dismissed that day On the same that this Court dis- per motion in a short curiam order on applicant's stay missed motion for of exe- 23,1998.6 February Judge Overstreet dis- cution, applicant again, via current filed— sented, arguing applicant that had not re- in stay counsel—for federal dis- ceived effective assistance of counsel on his granted. trict court which was The feder- “writ.” first He noted that: al appointed court then current habeas attorney The initial habeas has even grant- counsel as federal writ counsel and an signed affidavit that admitting he filing permit ed several extensions to coun- perfunctory filed such a applica- investigate sel sufficient time to and raise tion because he erroneously thought he appropriate February habeas claims. On precluded was from challenging con- 24, 1999, the federal district court dis- trial proceedings while viction/sentence missed, prejudice, applicant’s without fed- appeal the direct was pending; i.e. be- eral corpus, stating writ of habeas appeal cause the direct had not been “the courts of the State Texas should be decided before the filing deadline for given opportunity each of address application, he thought “that no is- petitioner’s numerous unexhausted claims sues could be raised attacking the validi- relief, for federal habeas as well as ty ap- of conviction or sentence.” Thus cornucopia supporting new evidence plicant very has been effectively denied petitioner proposes same that right to challenge his conviction via this Court.”7 Texas state habeas 1, 2000, applicant On March filed the of his attorney’s error. third “writ” application instant with the
convicting court which was transmitted to time, Baird, represented by 5.At this Judges was Overstreet and Womack again, his current habeas counsel. Once granted stay would have of execution. nothing petition in this second habeas chal- lenged validity applicant’s underlying Johnson, 7. Kerr v. No. SA-98-CA-151-OG conviction or sentence. This second "writ” (W.D. 24, 1999) (unpub Tex. Dated Feb. claims, application again raised derivative lished). applicant’s this time the contention was that provided habeas counsel had ineffec- tive assistance of counsel in the first "writ.” under art. 5 to deter- this Court a one-time for a writ subsequent whether this emphasize, mine is a corpus except, I and want barred Section We conclude circumstances”; except exceptional in is, fact, subsequent is not a writ. provides appointment it for the first writ that Mr. Kerr has all payment represent counsel to those comports require- filed which with the convicted of murder sentenced article ments of “seeks petitions.12 to death their habeas Rep- relief from Gallego, resentative Pete presenting of death.”8 bill same habeas to the Texas House of Representatives stated:
II.
And we tell
that everything
individuals
Corpus
Habeas
Act of 1995
Reform
time,
can
you
possibly raise the first
implement
efficiently
enacted to
more
expect you
initially,
one
raise it
bite of
the Texas Constitutional mandate that
apple, one
shot.... What we’re at-
Legislature
laws to ren-
“[t]he
shall enact
tempting
say
to do here is to
“raise
remedy
corpus] speedy
[of
der the
everything
get
at
You
one time.”
one
As
Montford ex-
and effectual.”9
Senator
apple.
you
If
have to
bite
stick
plained in
out
laying
the bill to the Senate
*5
there,
it
put
the kitchen sink in
all in
Committee,10
Criminal Justice
the Habeas
there,
through
and we
go
will
those
major
Corpus Reform Act made three
a
claims one at a time and make
deci-
1)
changes
adopts
to Texas law:
it
a uni-
“every
sion. But none of this
week you
tary system
penalty
for death
habeas re-
petition”
currently
file a new
which is
appeals
view which direct
and habeas
basically
The
happens....
what
idea is
proceeded
parallel paths at
along
review
2)
to
time;
you’re
this:
to be able
fund
adopts
going
roughly
same
“it
counsel in
and we
currently
of the writ
these instances
abuse
doctrine
used
going
give you
very well-repre-
in federal court11 which limits an inmate to
to
one
11.071,
Carr,
523,
(Tex.Crim.
parte
525
8. Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Art.
1.
Ex
(if
grounds
App.1974)
petitioner has
habeas
1, §
Const. Art.
9. Tex.
12.
relief,
justify granting
which would
he should
determination,
dispatch
them
for
440,
1995,
Leg.,
10. S.B.
Acts
74th
codified at
one-by-one
doling
than
out
rather
them
(testimony
Crim. Proc.
Tex.Code
Art. 11.071
attempts
repeated
both the
to have
benefits of
taken before the
Criminal Justice
Senate
harassing
fleeting pleasures
and the
relief
Committee,
10, 1995).
April
him);
who
see also Ex
those
confine
Dora,
(Tex.Crim.App.
393
Actually,
long ago recog-
S.W.2d
this Court had
(habeas
for abuse of the
jurisprudential problems
cited
nized
attendant
multiple
filings
judicial
bringing
hinted of
"over and
to
and
writ for
same claims
over
not, however,
again”).
invocation of the
of the writ” doctrine:
"abuse
This
con
"abuse
sistent in its
of the
of the
respect
proper
concept
justice
A
passage
the 1995
writ” doctrine until
Ha-
protect,
the office of the
Writ to
is
Great
Corpus
beas
Reform Act. Articles
requires
petitions
be filed in earnest
require
present-
statutorily
11.071 now
the consistent
and that all
merit be
contentions of
upon
possi-
writ”
expeditiously
and ruled
as
of the "abuse of the
doc
ed
corpus
subsequent
filings.
too seri-
ble. The writ
is
trine
lightly
important
ous and
a matter to be
used,
Leg.,
Acts
74th
codified at
12.S.B.
easily
is a shield
abused.
(testimony
Crim.
Art. 11.071
Tex.Code
Proc.
against injustice
not be suf-
which should
Criminal Justice
weapon
taken before the Senate
fered to become
in the hands of
Committee,
10, 1995).
April
spiteful persons.
corpus
person’s
sented run at a
to liberation from
proceed-
right
cation of
restraint”);
2d,
ing.
you
very
illegal
And unless
meet a
fine-
39 Am Jur
Habeas
(“[t]he
exception, you’re
going
Corpus
purpose
tuned
not
of the writ of
be
able to come back time after time after
...
is not to determine the
pri-
guilt
prisoner;
time.13
or innocence of a
only, object
if
of the writ is
mary,
course,
Of
this entire statute is built
legality of the
to determine the
restraint
premise
that a death
inmate
row
does
held”).
person
under
is
full
opportunity
pres-
have one
and fair
jurisdictional
ent his constitutional or
worthy
To constitute a document
procedures
claims
accordance with the
application”
pursuant
the title “writ
of the statute.
11.071,
to article
the writ must seek “relief
Ricky
yet
Lee Kerr has not
had that one
judgment
penalty
from a
full and fair opportunity.
present ap-
The
A death
“writ” that
death.”14
plication is the first document in which
validity
un
challenge
does not
applicant’s
contentions,
true,
claims and
if
which,
judgment and
derlying
even meri
might merit
im-
“relief from a
torious,
would not result
immediate re
posing
of death.” Art.
lief from his
murder conviction or
§ sentence,
applica
death
is not an “initial
purpose
of a writ of
purposes
tion” for
of art.
5 which
speedy
obtain a
generally
effective
bars consideration of a subse
adjudication
person’s
of a
right
quent
to libera
applica
writ after
the “initial
tion
illegal
from
restraint.
Blackledge
applies
non-capi
See
tion.” This same rule
Allison,
63, 71,
v.
431 U.S.
97 S.Ct.
tal writs filed under Article 11.07.
Ex
See
*6
(1977) (“the
(Tex.
Evans,
52
very
643,
L.Ed.2d 136
purpose
parte
964
646-47
S.W.2d
(an
of
corpus
the writ of habeas
Crim.App.1998)
to safe
application”
[is]
“initial
for
guard
person’s
freedom from detention
a writ under art.
pertaining
in
of
guarantees”);
violation
constitutional
parole
hearing
revocation
does not chal
Ex parte Ramzy, 424
lenge
underlying
S.W.2d
the
conviction and thus
(Tex.1968) (“the purpose of the writ of
not bar a subsequent
does
writ which does
conviction).15
corpus
a speedy adjudi-
obtain
challenge the
Leg.,
filing
S.B.
Acts
complained
parole
74th
codified at
the first
revo-
of
(Presenta-
Therefore,
Evans,
Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Art. 11.071
process).
in
as
cation
by Representative
Gallego
tion
here,
Pete
at second
applicant
entitled to
was
file
later
reading of S.B. 440 on the floor of the House
writ
which did attack the under-
18, 1995).
Representatives, May
of
lying
Under this from the under- application seeking relief an filings qualified two as plicant’s first present judgment of conviction is lying for a writ of habeas application” “initial the merits of one. He is entitled seeking judgment “relief from a corpus application heard and decided. that initial penalty of death.” Even Mr. imposing a challenging the consti Kerr’s first motion grant had III.
tutionality of article 11.071
been
disappeared, he
the habeas statute
ed and
upon anyone
place
decline to
blame
relief from his
not obtain
would
situation. The
for Mr. Kerr’s
or death sentence. He
murder conviction
competent
counsel was
original habeas
being restrained under the habeas
is not
he
handle this matter when
qualified to
He is restrained
virtue
statute.
Mines, 26
appointed.
parte
See Ex
from the
and sentence
(stat-
(Tex.Crim.App.2000)
S.W.3d
Similarly,
underlying capital murder trial.
that,
appointment of
ing
purposes
for
solely with a
filing
dealt
the second
of art.
“competent counsel”
context
inef
stay
allegation
and an
attorney’s
execution
“competent”
to an
refers
abilities).
fective assistance
He made
qualifications and
Applicant
being
is not
restrained
counsel.
as an innocent mis-
what we characterize
original habe-
of the conduct of his
an initial document entitled
take
majority
Even if a
ha-
post-conviction
as counsel.
writ of
“application
substance,
was,
allegation
recognize
were to
its
corpus”
beas
counsel,16
of habeas
of time:
ineffective assistance
a motion for extension
akin to
claim, one which
should not be
purely
is a
derivative
that he
counsel believed
writ of habe-
procedural
bar and
to file a substantive
simply
required
avoid
would
to the
until
writ of certiorari
to have
allow the habeas
had been
Supreme Court
United States
underlying
of his
constitutional
merits
rejected.17
accepted or
claim heard.
Woodward,
challenged
application which
soning
but it is en-
or result in
simply
first writ
Id. at 861. The
tirely
with Evans.
conviction.
consistent
Whiteside,
(Tex.
appeal, it "did not di-
sought an out-of-time
first position the same He is in the ment. 11.071). art. subsequent writ under Evans; the he is not in applicant applicant in Whiteside. position as the same original counsel’s verbatim 17. The McPherson, 860, 861 In Ex were: contentions reiterated its (Tex.Crim.App.2000), this Court 1) prior application by requiring a writ a first writ holding Evans and held that petition filing of a for for the to the deadline application alleging ineffective assistance certiorari, infringes Article 11.071 writ of a appeal did not bar later counsel on We are confident that this sort of mis- in which the relief seeks by take will not be made counsel other judgment imposing from a today. Although possible after it is Therefore, application death.” for a original attorney’s characterize the by filed Mr. Kerr’s writ of habeas filing as a strategy designed Machiavellian 6, 2000, August habeas counsel on proper statutory procedure to thwart the purposes is his initial writ for of art. writ, filing for a death we have no timely 11.071. We consider filed as reason to make that conclusion in this date, by today’s operation issue particular If case. future habeas counsel 11.071, 6(a), pursuant law to art. and (which indulge strategy were such a return the initial and all associ- doubt), we statutory have both the and ated materials to the trial court for further plenary authority attorney hold that proceedings. powers contempt,18 accountable via our removing denying compensation orders or JOHNSON, J., concurring filed a counsel,19 dilatory reporting violations of opinion. the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Profes- sional appropriate Conduct State KELLER, P.J., filed dissenting officials, Bar as well as other remedies.20 order, KEASLER, opinion joined by to the J.
Similarly, trial courts who make
original appointment
of habeas counsel
HERVEY, J., not participating.
11.071, 2(c),
under art.
have the authori
ty to
progress
timely
monitor the
fil
JOHNSON, J.,
concurring
filed a
ing
of an initial
for writ which
opinion.
qualifies as one which “seeks relief from a
join
I
I
II
majority
Parts
judgment
penalty of death.”21
opinion
and concur in the
We are
judges
confident that
trial
Texas
Court.
can identify and deal appropriately with
dilatory
recalcitrant or
habeas counsel.
holds,
majority
original
As the
appli-
sum,
lacking
we hold
cation was so
in merit that it can-
timely
by applicant’s
document submitted
not even
be considered
true
However,
habeas counsel was not “a
corpus.
writ of habeas
for a writ of
I
Supreme
(Tex.Crim.App.1977) (appointed
Court’s review of Mr.
at-
appeal, making
torney
timely
appellate
Kerr’s direct
such review
who failed to
file
brief
Supreme
contempt, reported
could be
likely,
Court less
held
to State
if not alto-
committee,
grievance
gether
Bar
be removed from
impossible;
specific representation
prevented
from
by requiring
application prior
a writ
receiving
appointments).
future
petition
to the deadline for the
of a
*8
certiorari,
requires
writ of
Article 11.071
See,
11.071,
e.g.,
collaterally]
Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Art.
Mr. Kerr to
attack
convic-
4A(c).
final,
§
yet
something
tion which is not
that
internally contradictory
makes 11.071
something
Guillory,
prohibited by prior pre-
is
20. See
423 jurisdictional It raised no constitutional or longer applied Article 11.07 no claims concerning the fundamental fair claims that not seek did relief from ness of the accuracy judgment.10 reasoning, trial or the Under the same 11.071, § of the verdict.”4 The the Article 1 Court asserts that “seeks relief from type judgment” language of claim was not to nar- satisfy this fails to Article meant 11.071, § row requirement applica cognizable l’s that the the class of claims penalty setting, tion death habeas but was in- judgment imposing seek “relief from a simply stead meant Article penalty designate death.”5 11.071 provision applicable as the to death However, parallel we have construed penalty appli- cases.11 follows that an language Article 11.07 in a manner con- trial, cant’s claims need not attack the trary 11.07, § to this conclusion. Article 1 verdict, cognizable or sentence to be in a language virtually contains identical to the corpus setting. 11.071, § language Article 1 by referenced holding The Court extends its to Article Court, to wit: “This article establishes applications, logically as it must. procedures for an for writ provisions But if the of Article 11.07 do not in which the apply to that fail pleadings to “seek relief seeks relief from a ... judgment....”6 judgment,” from a then Article 11.07 provisions The two only type differ would, presumably, not be available for referenced, with Article involving parole claims such matters as 11.071, § 1 referring “a judgment im- revocations, appeals, out-of-time and time posing of death” and Article credits. Aside from the fact that we have 11.07, § 1 referring to “a felony judgment held that these claims are un- cognizable other than death.” 11.07, interpretation der Article leaves Yet, context, in the Article 11.07 we have us with the unfortunate result that Article recognized cognizable as claims that do not apply great 11.07 does not to a number of verdict, attack the underlying trial or the applications this Court. including attacks parole revocation I do not know what method claimants procedures7 and requests for out-of-time relief, in such instances will now seek but appeals.8 Whiteside, In Ex we stat- even if there is a vehicle outside Article 11.07, ed that wording in Article 1 11.07, subject the claims will not be to the that, was simply meant to “indicate after Article 11.07 subsequent application re- 11.071, the enactment of Article Article strictions, primary and one aims of apply only 11.07would non-capital habe- that legislation will be defeated. applications, as distinguished capi- from applications.”9 tal Moreover, Legislature so conclud- has indicated ing, rejected claims, least, in Judge contention that time at cogni- credit concurring opinion Womack’s that after zable under Article 11.07. Section McPherson, opinion 4. Court’s at 416. 8. Ex Parte 32 S.W.3d (Tex.Crim.App.2000). opinion (quoting 5. Court’s at 416 Article 1). Whiteside, 9. Ex Parte 12 S.W.3d 822 n. 1 1;§ Compare 6. See Article with Article (Tex.Crim.App.2000). 11.071, § 1. Id. Evans, (Tex. 7. Ex Parte Woodward, Crim.App.1998); Ex Parte (Tex.Crim.App.1981). S.W.2d 179 11. See id. *10 but not another indicat- provides part
501.0081 of the Government Code statute may not a time-served limita- Legislature’s that inmates raise ed the intent that the Arti- credit error in an “under of in apply part tion not in the the statute 11.07” certain requirements cle unless ap- logic it is The same absent.16 of been met. the enactment With plies to 11.071. Given that Articles Article put § 501.0081 in the to Legislature and 11.07 11.071 the revisions Article any ap- that rest contention Article 11.07 adopted in the and together were same bill only that from a plies to claims seek relief language, some should parallel contain we judgment. that language assume the differences in Legisla- material intended are the
The two do differ statutes “challenging ture. Because the the convic- significant respect: in one Article 11.071 language wholly absent from Arti- tion” is not the con- “challenging does contain the 11.071, 5,§ logical the cle conclusion language subsequent viction” limits that, cases, in death initial § 4 applications. Article 11.07 bars While application, it at- subsequent application regardless a for writ of habeas whether conviction, if disposition triggers filed “after final the 5 bar it is tacks challenging the subsequent applications. of an initial for all conviction,” Article 11.071 5 bars same Article interpretation The Court’s “after subsequent application it is filed disa- effectively 11.07 Article 11.071 Evans, In application.”12 an initial cases, old, vows number new “challenging found presence we dealing applicant’s ability with to raise same to be con- language conviction” 11.07, including Ev- claims under Article in trolling determination that certain our Woodtuard, ans, Whiteside, and McPher- applica- types of made an initial claims ap- may in this case be son. The result applica- subsequent tion would not bar run, I long agree cannot pealing, but Whiteside, absence tion.13 found the it is correct. to subse- language reference applications to mean that the “chal- quent reasons, I For these conclude that limitation did lenging the same conviction” subsequent indeed a present application is As apply subsequent applications.14 appli- §to 5. Because application subject result, cases, once non-death excep- the enumerated cant fails meet the con- application challenging an initial tions,17 this should be barred. finally has all subse- disposed, viction been respectfully I dissent. (unless applications they quent barred exceptions) meet one the enumerated subsequent ap-
regardless of whether the con-
plication challenge constitutes
viction.15 said Whiteside that placed the “chal- Legislature
fact that the in one
lenging the conviction” limitation added) § 4(a)(emphasis
12. See 15. Id. Article 5(a). provisions Both and Article exceptions contain which are not relevant 16. Id. discussion. 11.071(a)(l)-(3). 17. See Article
13.