## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS

N O . A P- 75 , 93 0 ( H A BE A S C O R PU S) N O . A P -75 , 9 3 1 (P R O H IB IT IO N )

EX PA R TE H EL I BE R TO C H I , A ppl i c ant
ON AP P LI CAT I ON F OR A W RI T OF HABE AS CORP US AN D P E T I T I ON F OR A WRI T OF P RO HI B I T I ON CAUS E N O. 0 8 0 5 5 9 4 I N T HE CR I M I NAL DI S TR I CT COURT NUM BE R 3 OF TA RRANT COUNT Y
H ERV EY , J., annou nced the judgm ent of the Cou rt and delivered an opin ion in wh ich K ELLER , P .J., and M E YE RS and K EASLER , JJ., jo ine d. C OCH RAN , J. fi led a concurring opin ion in w hich W OM ACK , J . , j o ined. P RI CE , J., fi led a dis senting opi nion . J OHN S ON , J ., file d a diss e nt ing opi nio n in whic h H O L C O MB , J., jo ine d.

O P I N I O N Chi is a death-row inmate who had an ex ecution date set when he filed a subse quent (sec ond) habea s corpus a

pplication under A rticle 11.071, T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC , and a mot ion fo r l e ave to file a pe tition for a writ of pr ohibition. These pleading s contain a c laim that Texas’ lethal-injection protocol violates the Eig hth A mendment’s prohibition a g ainst crue l and unusual punishments and

a re qu e st that Ch i’ s e xec uti on be pr oh ibi te d und e r T e xas’ c ur re nt l e tha l- inj e c tio n p ro toc ol.
In Ex parte Alba , the applicant challeng ed Texas’ lethal-injec tion pr otocol in a subsequentChi–2

1 We need not dec ide whethe r the “ clea r rig ht to relief” pronghas a diff eren t o r broader meaningin the prohibition context than for mandamus. Under any possible view of that prong , the applicant in this case has fa iled to show that he is entitled to relief.

2 Chi f i l ed h i s p eti tion for writ of pr ohibition after the United States Supre me Court had g rante d cer

tiorari in, but befor e it decide d, Ba ze . Chi asser

ted i n his motion for leave to file that he “has f iled pleading s raisingthe identical issue grante d cer tiorari re view in Ba

ze [. ]” habea s corpus application. See E x parte Alba , slip op. at 2 (Tex.Cr.App. No. AP-75,510, dec ided this day). W e held that this is not a cognizable habea s corpus c laim under Ar ticle 11.071, and we dismiss ed Alba’ s subsequent habe as cor pus application. See A lba , slip op. at 9. Pursuant to Alba ,
we a lso dismi ss Chi’s subsequent habea s corpus a pplication in Ex parte Chi , No. WR-61,600-02. Wit h respe ct to Chi’s petition for a writ of prohibition, Chi is require d to show that he has a cle ar le g al rig ht to the relief that he s eeks (in this case the prohibition of his ex ecution by what he claims is an unconstitutional lethal-injection protocol) a nd that he has no a dequate reme dy at law. See State ex rel. W

ade v. M ays , 689 S.W. 2d 89 3, 89 7- 90 0 (T e x.Cr .App . 198 5) . Ch i ob vio us ly me e ts this latter requir ement, si nce he has no rig ht to present his Eig hth Amendment claim by way of
appea l or habe as cor

pus application under

Article 11.071. The issue, ther efor e, is whethe r Chi has a cle ar r ight to the r elief that he see ks. See W ade , 689 S.W .2d at 897 (e n t i t l em en t to writ of prohibition must be shown to be “ clea r and indisputable,” or “une quivocal,” or “abunda ntly clea r”)

and a t 89 8 n .1 1 ( pa

rt y seeki ng wr it o f p ro hib iti on “ mus t make a

c le ar s ho wi ngthat un de r c e rt a in fa c ts, the law i s su

bje c t to but on e int e rp re tatio n; h e the n mu st s ho w that un dis pute d f a c ts e xist which entitle him unequivoca lly to a rig ht flowing from that sing le interpre tation”). 1 Chi’s petition for writ of prohibition is predicate d on the United St at es S up re m e Court’s decision in Baze v. R ees , 553 U.S. (2008). In Ba ze , the United States Supreme Court by a 7-2 2Chi–3

3 Com pa reBa ze , slip op. at 4-7 (desc ribing Kentucky ’s lethal-injec tion protocol) with Texas De pa rtme nt o f C ri minal J us tic e , Co rr e c tio na l Ins tit uti on s D ivi sio n, Exe c uti on Pr oc e dure (A

pr il 2005) (Exhibit 1 to State’s reply t o petition for writ of pr ohibition and part of Exhibi t 1 to Chi ’s pe tit ion fo r wri t of

pr oh ibi tio n) ; se e als o Ex parte O’Brien , 190 S.W .3d 677, 678-83 (Te x .Cr.App. 2006) (Cochr an, J., concurring ); Chi’s petition for writ of prohibition at 1-2 (statingthat beca use “the manner curr ently

intended to administer a l et h al injection to Mr. Chi has not been dee med c on sti tut ion a l by

the Un ite d St a te s Su

pr e me Cou

rt , a nd be c a us e the U. S. Su

pr e me Cou

rt ha s r e c e ntl y g rante d a wr it of c e rti or

ar ion that very

question, see Baze

v. Re es , 07-5439, Mr. Chi requests that this Court gra

nt him a wr it

o f p r o h ib ition prohibit ing de fenda nts from administeringa lethal injec tion to him in t he manne r currently intended until such time as the mer its of the dispute have be en resolved” ) and at 15 (stating that the Supreme Court in Ba ze“ a g re e d to re vie w t

he c on sti tut ion a lity of the manne r that the Responde nts intend to use to administ er Mr . Chi’s lethal inje ct i on”); Chi’s m o t i o nfo r l ea v e t o fi l e ap et i t i o nfo r w ri to f p ro h i b i t i o nat 3 (s t at i n g th atC h i “h as fi l edp l ea d i n gs raising the identical issue g rante d cer tiorari re view in Ba

ze ”). We note that Chi’s subsequent habea s corpus application also states that the Supreme Court gr anted c ertiora ri in Ba zeto decide whether the a dmi nis tr a tio n o f a

le t h a l i n j e c t i o n “ m a t e ri a lly ind ist inguis ha

ble ” fr om T e xas’ vio late s th e Ei g hth and F ourt e e nth

Am e ndme nts

. L ast wee k, the Supreme Court de cided to we igh in on the i s s u e of the constitutionalit y

of lethal injec tion by

States like Texas. See Baze v. Rees , No. 07- 5439. Th e Cou rt will n ow d ecide whether the adm inis trat ion of a lethal inj e c ti on m at e r ial ly i ndis ti nguisha ble fro m Te xa s’ s v iol at e s t he Eig ht h and F our te e nt h Am e ndm e nt s. Mr. Chi herein a sserts his rig ht to remain fr ee f rom crue l and unusual punishment, and a sks t h i s C o u rt to stay his ex ecution pendingthe Sup re me Court ’s re so lut ion of thi s im po rt ant q ue sti on , w hic h w ill de fi nitiv e ly de te rm ine wh e the r h e is e nti tle d to the re lie f h e re in s ou g ht. Chi’s habea s corpus a

pplication at 2 (e mphasis supplied).
4 Com pa reBa ze , slip op. at 3 with Chi’s petition for writ of prohibition at 6-11. vo te up he ld K e ntu c ky ’s le tha l- inj e c tio n pr oto c ol, wh ic h is mate ri a lly ind ist inguis ha ble fr om T e xas’ lethal-injec tion protocol. In ad dition, li ke the pe titioners in Ba ze , Ch i’ s p ri nc ipa l c la im i n th is 3
proce eding i s “the r isk of pain from mala dminist ration of a conce dedly

humane letha l injection protocol.” An d , l ike the petitioners in Ba ze , Chi’s maladministration claim focuses on the 4 possibi l i t y t h at the first drugin the lethal-injec tion protocol, sodium thi opental (a lso known asChi–4

5 Com pa reChi ’s Pe tit ion

fo r Wr it o f P ro hib iti on

at 8 ( “ Ge ne ra lly , if

su c c e s s f u l l y d e l i v e re d into the c ir c ulatio n in

su ff ic ie nt q ua nti tie s, thr e e g ra

ms [o f t he fi rs t dru g in the le tha l in je c tio n p ro toc ol] cause s sufficient de pression of the ne rvous sy stem to permit otherwise e x cruc iatingly painful proce dures to be pe rfor

med without causingdiscomfort or distress.” ).
6 Ha d th e Sup re me Court

de c ide d th a t K e ntu c ky ’s le tha l- inj e c tio n p ro toc ol v iol a te d th e Ei g hth Amendment for

rea sons applicable to Te x as’ lethal-injection protocol, then we believe that Chi would have be en entitled to the wr it of prohibition, si nce the undisputed fac ts and the undisputed law unequivoca lly

would have r equire d it. See M ays , 689 S.W .2d at 897-900. Pentathol), will not be proper ly administered. The United States Supre me Court in Ba zeclea rly and 5 unambig uously

upheld Kentuc ky ’s lethal-injec tion protocol. See B az e , s lip op. at 15-17 (K entucky ’s lethal-injec tion protocol does not cre ate substantial risk that first drugin the protocol will be improperly

administered) , and at 23 ( “Ke ntucky has adopte d a method of execution be lieved to be the most humane ava ilable, one it share s with 35 other States. Petitioners ag ree that, if administered as intended, the proce dure will result in a painless death. The risks of maladministration they have

s u g g e s te d

– s u c h a s im

p r o p e r mi xin g o f c h e mi c a ls an d im p r o p e r s e tt in g o f I V s b y tr ained a nd
exp e r ie n c e d

p e r s o n n e l– c an n o t r e mo te ly b e c h ar a c te r iz e d

a s ‘ o b je c ti v e ly into le r a b le

. ’ K e n tu c ky ’s decision to adhe re to its protocol despite these asserted risks, while adopting s afe g uards to prote ct

a g a ins t them, cann ot b e vie we d a s p ro bativ e of the wa nto n in fl ic tio n o f p a in u

nd e r t he Ei g hth Amendment.”)

. 6 Chi also points to a possible maladministration of a letha l-i n j ec t i o n protocol duringan execution of a pe rson named Ang el Diaz in Florida. SeeChi’s Petit ion for Writ of Prohibiti on at 11- 14. This, howeve r, i s insufficient to establish an Eig hth Amendment violation. Se e Ba ze , slip op.

a t 11 (“ an iso late d mis ha

p a lon e do e s n ot g ive ri se to a n E ig hth Am e ndme nt v iol a tio n” ); O’Brien , 190 S.W .3d at 682 ( C ochra n, J ., concur

ring ) (“ Courts cannot judg e the letha l injection protocolChi–5

ba se d s ole ly

on sp e c ulatio n a s to pr ob le ms o r m ist ake s th a t might occur ”) ( emphasis in orig inal). Concluding that Chi’s Eighth Amendment c laim has no merit, we de cide t hat Chi cannot establish that he has a

clea r rig ht to the r elief that he reque sts. Chi ’s petition for wr it of prohibition is denied and his stay

of execution is lifted.

H e r v e y , J.

Deliver ed: J une 9, 2008 Pub lis h