## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS
N O . A P - 75, 790

EX PA R TE A R TH U R LE E B U R TO N , A ppl i c ant

ON AP P LI CAT I ON F OR A W RI T OF HABE AS CORP US CA US E NU M B E R 7 6 0 3 2 1 - B F RO M T HE F RO M 3 3 8 T H DI S TRI CT CO URT OF HA RRI S CO UNTY

P er c uri am . H OL C OM B , J ., fi le d c o n c u r r in g a o p in io n . P RI CE , J. , c onc ur r e d. J OHNS ON , J ., d is s e n te d . O P I N I O N In 1 9 9 8 , a ju ry f

o u n d A rth u r L e e B u rto n g u iltyo f c a p ital m u rd e r a n d se n ten c e d h im t o death. O n O ct ober8, 1998, w hi l e hous ed on dea th r ow , B ur t on w as i nt ervi ew ed bypr i s on
s o c i o l o g i s tJ
. P
. Gu yt o n a s p a r t o f a r o u t i n e “ c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i n t e r v i e w. ” Du r i n g th e i n t e r v i e w, G uy t on asked B urt on w hyhe co m m i t t ed th e m u rd er. In r espon se, B urt on sai d, “Just

s om ethi ng I coul dn’ thel p. ” I n 2001, w e af

fi r m ed B ur t on’ s convi ct i on on di r ect appea l butvaca t ed the s ent enceB U R T O N —2

B u rto n v . S ta te , N o. A P- 73, 204 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. M ar . 7, 2001) ( notdes i gnat ed 1 fo r pu b li ca ti o n ). B u rto n v . S ta te , N o. A P- 73, 204 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. M ay9, 2004) ( notdes i gnat ed 2 f o r p u b lic a tio n ). I d. at*6. 3 I d. at*8. 4 a n d re m a n d e d th e c a u se to th e trial c o u rt f o r a re trial o n p u n ish m e n t. 1 O n r etr i al , the St at e i ntr oduced, and the tr i al j udge admi t t ed, the s t at ementthatB ur t on
m a d e to G u yto n e x p lain in g w h yh e c o m m itt e d th e m u rd e r. B a se d o n th e ju ry ’s a n sw e rs to the s peci al i s s ues , B ur t on w as s ent ence d t o death for a sec ond t i m e on Sept ember6, 2002. B u rto n a p p e a led , alle g in g , am o n g o th e r th in g s, th a t th e trial ju d g e v io late d h is rig h ts underthe Fi fth A m endmentt o t he U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on byadmi t t i ng the s t at ementhe

ma d e t o Guy t o n . We h e l d th a tBu r t o n f a i l e d t o p r e s e r v e th i s c l a i m f o ra p p e l l a t e r e v i e w. 2 3 A nd aft eroverrul i ng B ur t on’ s r emai ni ng poi nt s of err or , w e af fi r m ed hi s death s ent ence . 4 O n D ece m ber1, 2003, B ur t on fi l ed an appl i cat i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus chal l engi ng the val i di tyof the puni s hm entr etr i al on fourgr ounds
. O n N ovember7, 2007,

w e fi l ed and s et B ur t on’ s s econd gr ound for r evi ew
— that hi s tr i al couns el render ed in e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e f

o r f a ili n g to p ro p e rlyo b

jec t to G u yto n ’s te st im o n yu n d e r th e F if th A m endment
. O n D ece m ber 4, 2007, the St at e fi l ed a “ M ot i on R eques t i ng C l ar i fi cat i on of C our t ’ s N ovember7, 2007 O r der
. ” C ons equent l y , on D ece m ber 19, 2007, w e or der ed the part i es t o sub m i tbri efs add res si ng the fo l l ow i ng i ssues:B U R T O N —3

E x par t e Burt on , A P- 75, 790 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. D ec. 19, 2007) ( notdes i gnat ed for 5 p u b li ca ti o n ).

S e e He rr e ra v . S ta te , 2 4 1 S
. W
. 3 d 5 2 0 (T ex . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ). 6 See Este lle v . Sm ith , 4 5 1 U
. S
. 4 5 4 (19 8 1 ); W ilke rs o n v . S ta te , 173 S. W
. 3d 521 7 (T ex . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 5 ).

(1 ) w h e th e r a ll q u e sti o n s a s k e d a n d a n sw e rs o r sta tem e n ts obt ai ned i n a cl as s i fi cat i on i nt ervi ew ar e adm i s s i bl e i n court , or w h e th e r so m e q u e stio n s a s k e d a n d a n sw e re d o r sta tem e n ts obt ai ned ca n ex ce ed t he s cope of a perm i s s i bl e cl as s i fi cat i on i nt ervi ew and bec om e pr oduct s of cus t odi al i nt err ogat i on; ( 2) w hether the ques t i on of w hyappl i cantcomm i t t ed the i ns t ant cr i m e exc eed ed the perm i s s i bl e s cope of the cl as s i fi cat i on i nt ervi ew and bec ame cus t odi al i nt err ogat i on; and ( 3) w hetherappl i cant ’ s couns el per form ed def i ci ent l yw hen he fai l ed t o sp eci fi cal l yobj ectt o the t es t i m onyon thi s bas i s at trial. 5
O n J une 18, 2008, w e r emanded the ca s e forthe tr i al j udge t o cons i derevi dence and hearar gum ent s r el evantt o “cus t ody ” and G uyt on’ s s t atus as a st at e age nt forpurpos es of 6 7 th e F if th A m e n d m e n t. T h e trial ju d g e re tu rn e d th e c a s e to u s o n D e c e m b e r 3 1 , 2 0 0 8 . A f ter th o ro u g h ly

re v iew in g th e p a rties ’ b rie f s, th e trial ju d g e ’s f

in d in g s o f

f a c t an d c o n c lu sio n s o f

law , as w e ll

a s the re lev a n t c a se law , w e c a n n o t f a u lt B u rto n ’s trial co u n se l f o r fa ili n g to o bje c t. T h is part i cul ar under l y i ng Fi fth A m endmenti s s ue i s uns ett l ed; ther efor e, couns el cannotbe foundB U R T O N —4

See Ex par t e C handl er , 182 S. W
. 3d 350, 359 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. 2005) ( ci t i ng Ex 8 par t e W elch , 9 8 1 S
. W
. 2 d 1 8 3 , 1 8 4 (T ex . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 8 ); V a u g h n v . S ta te , 931 S. W
. 2d 5 6 4 , 5 6 7 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 9 6 ); C a lde ro n v . S ta te , 950 S. W
. 2d 121, 133 ( T ex. A p p .— E l P a so 1 9 9 7 , n o p e t.); Sa u c e d o v . S ta te , 756 S. W
. 2d 388, 393- 94 ( T ex. A p p . — S an A n ton io 1 9 8 8 , n o p et. )). defi ci entunderthe fa ct s i nvol ved her e. R el i ef i s ther efor e deni ed. 8

D A T E I SSU E D : A pr i l 1, 2009 D O N O T PU BL I SH