Cause Number WR-62,099-04 

Ex Parte Robert Lynn Pruett

State’s Response

to Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus

and

Motion for Stay of Execution

On Appeal in Cause Number B-01-M015-0-PR-B 

From the 156th District Court of Bee County, Texas

CAPITAL MURDER CASE

EXECUTION DATE SET FOR APRIL 28, 2015

Melinda Fletcher

SBN 18403630

Special Prosecution Unit

P O Box 1744

Amarillo, Texas 79105

Phone 806.367.9407

Fax 866.923.9253

mfletcher@sputexas.org

WR-62,099-04

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 4/20/2015 8:00:34 PM

Accepted 4/21/2015 8:04:56 AM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK

 RECEIVED COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 4/21/2015 ABEL ACOSTA, CLERK 
Table of Contents

Index of Authorities ..................................3

Statement of the Case .................................4

Statement of Facts ....................................5

Direct Appeal........................................5

Evidence from the DNA Hearing........................7

Summary of the Argument ...............................8

Argument ..............................................9

Pruett’s files his claim under Article 11.073 of 

the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. That Article 

does not operate to grant him relief under the facts 

of this case.........................................9

Prayer ...............................................11

Certificate of Compliance ............................12

Certificate of Service ...............................12

WR-62,099-04 State’s Response pg. 2
Index of Authorities

Texas State Case Law

Pruett v. State, 2004 WL 3093232 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2004).........................5, 6

Pruett v. State, No. AP-77,037 (Tex. Crim. App. 

Oct. 22, 2014) (not designated for publication), 

cert. denied, Pruett v. Texas, No. 14-8097 

(Mar. 30, 2015)............................8, 9, 10

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure

Art. 11.073 ....................................8, 9, 10

WR-62,099-04 State’s Response pg. 3
Cause Number WR-62,099-04

Ex Parte Robert Lynn Pruett

To the Honorable Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals:

Respondent, the State of Texas, respectfully 

presents this response in opposition to the granting of 

a Motion for Stay of Execution or a Writ of Habeas Corpus 

to Robert Lynn Pruett. Pruett’s grounds for relief have 

already been tried, they have already been tested, and 

they have already failed. 

Statement of the Case

Pruett is scheduled to be executed on April 28, 2015. 

He seeks a stay of execution and a writ of habeas corpus, 

alleging new DNA evidence that would have probably 

changed the outcome of trial, as well as a conspiracy to 

kill Nagle and frame Pruett. The State opposes the writ

and the stay of execution. 

WR-62,099-04 State’s Response pg. 4
Statement of Facts

Direct Appeal

Pruett appealed his capital murder conviction 

directly to this Court, filed as cause number AP-74,370.

One of the issues raised on appeal was the trial court’s 

refusal to allow Pruett to introduce evidence of an 

alleged conspiracy against the murder victim, Nagle. See 

Pruett v. State, 2004 WL 3093232, at *3 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2004). This Court wrote:

In his fourth point of error, the appellant again 

argues that the trial court denied him the 

fundamental constitutional right to present a 

meaningful defense. He specifically complains 

that the trial court erroneously excluded 

evidence “that Nagle's death may have been 

related to an investigation involving 

correctional officers smuggling contraband into 

the prison.

Defense counsel informed the trial court outside 

the presence of the jury that he wanted to 

question Thomas J. Prasifka, the warden of the 

McConnell prison unit, about “the fact that 

there were 30 or more officers indicted for 

smuggling dope into the prison and that Officer 

Nagle may have actually ratted some of them out.” 

Defense counsel argued that this evidence was 

necessary to show that “[t]here was a motive for 

the gang members who were getting the drugs to 

kill Mr. Nagle, and there was a motive for 

corrupt guards to kill Mr. Nagle.” Defense 

WR-62,099-04 State’s Response pg. 5
counsel questioned Prasifka outside the jury's 

presence to determine if Nagle had any 

involvement in the investigation of the indicted

correctional officers. Prasifka testified that 

Nagle did not act as an informant and had no 

involvement in the investigation. The trial 

court refused to permit defense counsel to 

pursue this line of questioning with Prasifka in 

front of the jury.

Defense counsel failed to produce any evidence 

in support of his speculative theory that Nagle 

was killed in retaliation for acting as an 

informant against his fellow correctional 

officers. As this court noted in Wiley v. State, 

“The danger of ‘confusion of the issues' and 

‘misleading the jury’ arises when circumstantial 

evidence tends to sidetrack the jury into 

consideration of factual disputes only 

tangentially related to facts at issue in the 

current case.” Prasifka denied that Nagle had 

any involvement in the investigation. Allowing 

the appellant to explore this issue without 

further evidence and in the face of Prasifka's 

denial of a link between Nagle and the 

investigation would serve no purpose but to 

“confus[e] the issues” and “mislead[ ] the 

jury.” The trial court did not abuse its 

discretion in refusing to permit defense counsel 

to question Prasifka about this issue in front 

of the jury. Point of error four is overruled.

Id., internal footnotes omitted.

WR-62,099-04 State’s Response pg. 6
Evidence from the DNA Hearing

There was no live testimony presented at the hearing 

on the Chapter 64 requests. (RR 1) The only evidence is 

Defendant’s Exhibit 1 (DX1), a report from Mitotyping 

Technologies. The report concludes:

In summary, while it can sometimes be 

appropriate to analyze STR data below threshold 

for the purpose of excluding individuals, it is 

my opinion that it would not be appropriate to 

do so in this case. This is due to the 

insufficient DNA in the torn paper sample 

resulting in a high degree of uncertainty in the 

peaks observed. Therefore, a meaningful 

comparison between the torn paper sample and any 

known samples cannot be performed.

The record is devoid of any mention from any of the DNA 

labs that results were not achieved due to inappropriate 

handling or storage of the evidence.

On April 20, 2015, this Court denied Pruett’s writ 

of prohibition which alleged that new DNA technology is 

available that would have probably changed the outcome 

of the trial. This Court’s order denying relief in cause

WR-62,099-03, includes the following:

Relator also filed in the trial court in May 

2013 a motion for post-conviction DNA and palmprint testing under Chapter 64 of the Texas Code 

of Criminal Procedure. The trial court granted 

WR-62,099-04 State’s Response pg. 7
that testing. However, the results of the 

testing were inconclusive, and the trial judge 

found that it was not reasonably probable that 

relator would have been acquitted had the new 

results been available at trial. Relator 

appealed that decision to this Court, and we 

affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Pruett 

v. State, No. AP-77,037 (Tex. Crim. App. Oct. 

22, 2014) (not designated for publication), 

cert. denied, Pruett v. Texas, No. 14-8097 (Mar. 

30, 2015).

Summary of the Argument

Pruett wishes to argue in this case (1) that there 

was a conspiracy against the murder victim, and (2) that 

new DNA technology would have probably changed the 

outcome of the trial. The conspiracy theory is not 

recognizable under Art. 11.073 and the DNA argument has 

been recently considered and rejected by this Court.

There is no reason to revisit the issue.

Pruett has had his due process and is now subject 

to execution. Writ should not issue to stay his execution 

or to grant him any other relief. 

WR-62,099-04 State’s Response pg. 8
Argument

Pruett’s files his claim under Article 11.073 of the Texas 

Code of Criminal Procedure. That Article does not operate 

to grant him relief under the facts of this case.

Article 11.073 grants relief to a person when (1) 

there is relevant scientific evidence that was not 

available to be offered at the time of trial, and (2) the 

court makes the finding that if the scientific evidence 

had been presented at trial, on the preponderance of the 

evidence the person would not have been convicted. Tex. 

Code Crim. Proc. Art. 11.073.

Pruett’s writ asserts that “[h]ad the new scientific 

evidence been presented to Pruett’s jurors, he probably 

would not have been convicted.” (See p. 15 of Pruett’s 

writ.) However, the new technology has already been 

applied to this case, with no conclusive results. See 

Pruett v. State, 2014 WL 5422573, at *1. The trial court 

determined that the inconclusive results would not have 

WR-62,099-04 State’s Response pg. 9
probably resulted in a different verdict, and this Court

affirmed the trial court. Id. at *1-*2.

Despite the inconclusive findings and the 

affirmation of the trial court’s decision, Pruett filed 

cause number WR-62,099-03 with this Court, seeking relief 

with the same argument. This Court denied that relief on 

April 20, 2015.

There is no new scientific evidence in this case that 

would probably result in a different verdict at trial.

Pruett’s “Therefore Article 11.073 does not operate to

grant Pruett the relief he seeks. 

WR-62,099-04 State’s Response pg. 10
Prayer

Because there is no new evidence and no new 

arguments, the State prays that this Honorable Court deny 

Pruett’s Motion for Stay of Execution and his Writ of 

Habeas Corpus. 

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Melinda Fletcher

Melinda Fletcher

Appellate Attorney

SBN 18403630

Special Prosecution Unit

P O Box 1744

Amarillo, Texas 79105

Phone 806.367.9407

Fax 866.923.9253

mfletcher@sputexas.org

WR-62,099-04 State’s Response pg. 11
Certificate of Compliance

I hereby certify that, according to Microsoft Word, 

this response contains a total of only 1515 words. The 

length of this document is in compliance with the Texas 

Rules of Appellate Procedure.

/s/ Melinda Fletcher

Melinda Fletcher

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the 

foregoing Brief for the State was served on David Dow and 

Jeff Newberry, the attorneys for Pruett, via electronic 

mail on this the 21st day of April, 2015.

/s/ Melinda Fletcher

Melinda Fletcher

WR-62,099-04 State’s Response pg. 12