### IN T H E C O URTOF C R IM INA LA P P E A L S OF T E XA S
NO. W R -84,438-01

E x p arte T E R E NC E T RA M A INE A NDR US, A p p lic ant
ON APPLICATION FOR POST-CON V ICTION WR IT OF HABEAS COR PUS FR OM CAUSE N O. 09-DCR -051034

IN THE 24OTH DISTR ICT COURT FORT BEN D COUN TY
N E W E L L , J., filed a d issenting op inion in wh i c h H E RV E Y , R I C H A R D S O N and W A L K E R , JJ., j oined . T h e Unit e d St at e s Supreme Co urt unquest io nably made mist akes regarding t his Co urt ’s original o rder denying po st -co nvict io n relief in t his

case. 1 I n his dissent , Just ice Alit o do cument ed a number o f inst ances in which t he Supreme Co urt erred in it s legal analysis a n d it s fact u al

r e p r e s ent at io n s. 2 To day, t h e C o urt do es a t ho ro ugh j ob o f furt her

1 An dr u s v. Te xas, 140 S. Ct. 1875, 1886 (2020).

2 Id. at 1887–1891 (Al i to, J., di sse n ti n g).Andrus Dissent ing — 2

enhancing Just ice Alit o ’s argument s. 3
But t he Unit ed St at es Supreme Co u rt do es no t care. At o n e po int in his dissent , Just ice Alit o act ually suggest ed t hat t his Co urt was required
t o sho ut o ur ho lding b y u s i n g “ all caps” o r bo ld t y pe t o prevent any misunderst anding. 4 I t did no t m at t er. I f t h e majo rit y members o f t he Supreme Co urt are unwilling t o list en t o t hese a r g ument co ming fro m t heir o wn co lleagu e s , I a m s kept ical t hat they will list en t o this Co urt ’s det ailed rest at emento f t hem. T h is is why I canno t jo in t he Co urt ’ s opinio n in t h is case. T he Unit ed St at es Supreme Co urt is no t last because it is always right , t hey are o nly right because t hey are always last

. 5 What e ver else can be said o f t he Supreme Co urt ’s o pinio n, it s charact erizat io n o f the mit igat io n evidence
t hat Applicant ’s t r ial at to rney failed t o unco ver was int egral t o t he det erminat io n t ha t Applicant ’s at t orney’s represent at io n fell belo w prevailing pro fessio n al no rms. T h is C ourt is no t free t o “ re-charact erize”

3 Maj . Op. at 13–25.

4 Id. at 1888 (Al i to, J., di sse n ti n g) (“Pe r h aps th e Cou rt th i n ks th e CCA sh ou l d h ave u se d CAPI TAL LE TTE RS or bold type . Or maybe i t sh ou l d h ave adde d: “An d we r e al l y me an i t!!!) (e mph asi s i n or i gi nal ).

5 Se eBr

own v. Alle n , 344 U.S. 443, 540 (1953) (Jackson , J. con cu r r i n g) (“Howe ve r , r e ve r s al by a h i gh e r

cou rt i s n o t pr oof th at j usti ce i s th e r e by be tte r don e . Th e r e i s n o dou bt th at i f th e r e we r e a su pe r -Su pr e me Cou rt, a su bstan ti al porti on of ou r r e ve r sal s of state cou rts wou l d al so be r e ve r se d. We ar e n ot fi n al be cau se we ar e i n fal l i bl e , bu t we ar e i n fal l i bl e on l ybe cau se we ar e fi n al .”)Andrus Dissent ing — 3

t hat evidence co nt rary t o t h e Unit ed St at es Supreme Co urt ’ s ho lding. We are bo und by t he Unit e d St at es Supreme Co urt ’s charact erizat io n. 6
Furt her, I disagree wit h t he Co urt ’s applicat io n o f t he st andard fo r prejudice in cases invo lving t he failure t o invest igat e po ssibly mit igat ing evidence. 7As we recent ly held in E x parte Garza , all an Applicantmust sho w to e st ablish t hat he was prejudiced by t r ial co unsel’s deficient perfo rmance is a sho wing t hat t h ere is a reaso nable pro b abilit y t hat at least o ne j u r o r wo uld have st ruck a different balance bet ween t he aggravat ing and mit igat ing evidence and vo t e d t o spare Applicant ’s life. 8 Based upo n t he Sup r e m e C ourt ’s charact erizat io n o f t he m it igat io n evidence in t his case, Applicant has met t ha t st andard. 9 And, t o t he
ext ent t hat t he Supreme Co urt addressed t he st andard fo r prejudice we

are t o apply, t he Suprem e Co urt clarified t hat w e e r r t o regard it as a high o ne. 1 0

6 Se e , e .g., State v. Guzman , 959 S.W.2d 631, 633 (Te x. Cr i m. App. 1998) (“Wh e n we de ci de case s i n vol v i n g th e Un i te d State s con s ti tu ti o n , we ar e bou n d by Un i te d State s Su pr e me Cou rt case l aw i n te r pr e ti n g i t [.]”) (ci ti n g ge n e r al l y Samu dio v. State , 648 S.W.2d 312, 314 (Te x.Cr i m.App. 1983)).

7 Maj . Op. at 14.

8 E x par te Gar za , 2021 WL 1397860 at *1 (Te x. Cr i m. App. Apr . 14, 2021).

9 An dr u s, 140 S. Ct. at 1876–1881.

10 An dr u s, 140 S. Ct. at 1886 n .6 (“Th e con cu r r i n g opi n i on , mor e ove r , se e me d to assu me th at th e pr ej u di ce i n qu i ry h e r e tu r n s pr i n ci pal l y on h ow th e fact of th i s case compar e to th e facts i n Wiggin s . We n ote th at we h ave n e ve r be for e e qu ate d wh at wasAndrus Dissent ing — 4

I share the Co urt ’s frust rat io n wit h t he Unit ed St at es Supreme Co u rt ’ s analysis in t his case. Do ubt less ot her co urt s, lo w er o n t he co urt st ruct ure pyramid, have experienced similar frust rat io n r egarding ho ldings fro m t his Co urt
. Nevert heless, t hey are s t ill bo u n d by t his Co u rt ’ s ho ldin g s j u st as we are by t he ho ldings o f the Unit ed St at es Supreme Co urt
. Because this Co u rt do es n o t pro p erly apply c o n t ro lling Supreme Co urtprecedentin t h is case, I dissent

. Filed: May 19, 2021 Publish

su ffi ci e n t i n Wiggin s wi th wh at i s n e ce ssary to e stabl i s h pr ej udi ce .” (compar i n g W iggin s v. Smith , 539 U.S. 510, 537–538, 123 S.Ct. 2527, 156 L.E d.2d 471 (2003) (“[T]h e mi ti gati ng e vi de nce i n th i s case i s str on ge r , an d th e State ’s e vi de n ce i n su pport of th e de ath pe n al ty far we ake r , th an i n W illiams , wh e r e we fou n d pr eju di ce as th e r e su l t of cou n se l ’s fai l u r e to i n ve sti gate an d pr e se n t mi ti gati n g e vi de nce ”) wi th Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 399, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.E d.2d 389 (2000) (fi n di n g su ch pr ej u di ce afte r appl yi n g AE D PA de fe r e nce )).