## 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 A N A P P L I CA T I ON F OR W RI T OF P RO HI B I T I ON

FROM TARRA NT CO UNTY

J OHNS ON , J. , f

i l e d a di s s e nt i ng o pi ni on i n w hi c h H OL C OM B , J. j oi ne d.

O P I N I O N
When a claim of c onstitut ional dimension is ra ised, there simply must be a mec hanism for consideringit on its merits. Be cause this is a death c ase, our curr ent options include the statutory writ of habe as co rpus pursuant to Article 11.071 of the Te x as Code of Criminal Proce dure, the constitutional wr it of habea s corpus pur suant to Article V, § 5, or a wr it of prohibition. J udg e Price has set out the case for the statutory writ, J udg e Cochra

n has set out the ca se for

the constitutional
wr it, a nd Judg e He rv e y

ha s se t out th e c a se fo r t

he wr it of pr oh ibi tio n. No ne of the op tio ns su it this2

situation well. I n this contex t, however , due proc ess of lawrequire s acc ess t o some form of habea s corpus; the wr it of prohibition is unsuited to be the mec hanism of choice
. The req u i re m en t s o f a writ of prohibition, as for a writ of mandamus, are that there be no adequate reme dy at law a

nd either that the duty

to do or not do is mini sterial or that the applicant ha s a cle ar r ight to the r elief he wants. Many times eac h y ear we issue rema nd order s that rec ite that the applicant ha s stated fa cts that, if true , w ou ld e nti tle him to r e lie f. Th e c ri tic a l iss ue is, of c ours e , “ if tr ue .” We r e mand

fo r a he a ri ng be c a us e , at the tim e we iss ue the re mand or de r, we do no t kn owif the a pp lic a nt’ s a lle g a tio ns a re , in fa c t, t ru e . D ue pr oc e ss d ema nd s th at we m a ke a n e ff or t to de te rm ine wh e re tr

uth lie s. Chi , Alba , and all the other ca s es beingheld for the m, hang on a sing le issue–the constitutionalit y

of the Te x as lethal-injec tion protocol–that has neve r be en subject to a he aringof
an y k i n d
. C er t ai n l y

t h e T ex as p ro t o co l i s s i m i l ar t o t h e K en tu ck y

p ro t o co l i n t h e k i n d

o f d ru gs administered and some of t he tra ining standa rds for e x ecutioner s and dissimil ar in other way s, such as the amount of eac h drug used. Remaining at issue is whether the Texas protocol has sa feguards that are at least at the level of Ke n t u cky ’s pra ctices–a pproved by

Chief J ustice Roberts and excoriated by

J ustice Ginsber g . Due pr ocess r equire s t h at t h er e be, in at lea st one ca se, a he aring that considers the Texas safeguards to dete rmine whe ther they pass muster. Wit hout a hear ing, w e cannot sa y whether applicant doe s or does not have a cle ar r ight to re lief. At this point , we c annot say whether applicant’ s alleg ations, if true , entitle him to relief. To dismiss them without a hear ing of any kind by saying that his claims have no mer it turns the writ of prohibition int o a door to a brick wa ll. Given the re cent de cision of the United States Supreme Court in Baze v. Ke ntucky , _

_ U.S.

__ , 1 28 S.Ct . 1 52 0 ( 20 08 ), a pp lic a nt i s unli ke ly

to p re va il o n th e me ri ts,3

but the likelihood of preva iling on the mer its should not d et er m i n e how we deal with the c laims. I t is lik e ly that, som e tim e in t he futur e , w e wi ll a g a in b e fa c e d w ithc la ims that do no t f it n e a tly int o one of the usual box es. Discer ning now how this claim can be hear d on the merits will be of va lue to t his Court wh e n th a t da

y c ome s. Ire sp e c tf

ull y dis se nt.
Filed: June 9, 2008 Pub lis h