Hobbs, Ex Parte Patrick Lynn
393 S.W.3d 780
Tex. Crim. App.
2013
Check Treatment

Ex parte Patrick Lynn HOBBS, Applicant.

No. AP-76,980.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 6, 2013.

393 S.W.3d 780

In combination, this evidence raises the likelihood that Burr was killed by someone he knew,22 someone he would have opened the door for, who then took him by surprise and killed him quickly. Burr lived alone. He had some family who lived elsewhere, but law enforcement found no indication that he had a girlfriend. Appellant testified that she had been inside Burr‘s house four to six times and that she and her brother regularly asked Burr to come to church with them but that he always declined to do so. By her own testimony, appellant would have been someone that Burr would have opened the door for and allowed into his home.

D. Evidence of Agreement for Conspiracy

The Court contends that there was no evidence of an agreement between appellant and one of the alleged co-conspirators. But the jury could have inferred the existence of an agreement between appellant and her father. As discussed above, the jury could have inferred that appellant was the individual who enabled her father to get access to Burr‘s home, that her father killed or helped kill Burr and steal guns and a Bible, and that appellant at least helped her father gain access with the intention of killing Burr and stealing from him. This information is sufficient for the jury to have inferred that appellant and her father had an agreement to rob and kill the victim.

E. Conclusion

From the above discussion, I conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support appellant‘s convictions for both capital murder and conspiracy.23 Because the Court holds to the contrary, I respectfully dissent.

Jeffrey Gelb, Galveston, TX, for Appellant.

Jack Roady, Galveston, TX, District Attorney, Galveston County, Lisa C. McMinn, State‘s Attorney, Austin, for State.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. . Applicant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance and sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment. He did not appeal his conviction.

Applicant contends that his due process rights were violated because a forensic scientist did not follow accepted standards when analyzing evidence and therefore the results of his analyses are unreliable. A Department of Public Safety report shows that the lab technician who was solely responsible for testing the evidence in this case is the scientist found to have committed misconduct. While there is evidence remaining that is available to retest in this case, that evidence was in the custody of the lab technician in question. This Court believes his actions are not reliable; therefore custody was compromised, resulting in a due process violation. Applicant is therefore entitled to relief.

Relief is granted. The judgment in Cause No. 09CR1300 in the 122nd District Court of Galveston County is set aside, and Applicant is remanded to the custody of the Sheriff of Galveston County. The trial court shall issue any necessary bench warrant within 10 days after the mandate of this Court issues.

Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Correctional Institutions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Notes

22
See (“There was no sign of forced entry-indicating that the murderer was likely someone the victim knew.“)
23
The Court does not address appellant‘s claim that the conspiracy conviction cannot stand because appellant‘s father and brother have been acquitted. Because this is a dissent, I will not address the claim in detail other than to remark that appellant‘s father was acquitted of capital murder (on appeal) but was never charged with, much less acquitted of, conspiracy.