Lav ev . S tate , No. AP-71,897 (Te x . Crim. App. Nov. 20, 1996) (not designated f or 1 publication). 

## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS
N O . A P - 75, 912

EX PA R TE JO SEP H R O LA N D LA V E, JR. , A ppl i c ant O N R EM A N D FR O M TH E SU PR EM E C O U R T O F T H E U N I TE D STA TE S

ON A P ET I TI ON F OR W RI T OF HABE AS CORP US

C A U SE N O . W R - 44, 564- 02 I N THE 2 8 2 J UDI CI AL DI S TRI CT CO URT O F DALLAS CO UNTY

ND P e rc u r ia m . K EL L ER , P. J
. , and P RI CE , J
. , notpar t i ci pat i ng. O P I N I O N T hi s is a su b seq uentappl i cat i on forw r i tof habe as corpus fi l ed pur s uantt o T exas C ode of Cri m i nal Pr ocedur e, A r t i cl e 11. 071, Sect i on 5, on r eman d fr om t he U ni t ed St at es S u p re m e C o u rt
. A ppl i cantw as convi ct ed of c api t al m ur deron M ar ch 2 9 , 1 994. W e af fi r m ed t he convi ct i on and s ent ence on di r ectappea l
. O n J anuary26, 199 8, appl i cantfi l ed hi s i ni t i al 1L ave Pag e 2

Ex parte Lave , No. WR-44,564-01 (Tex. Crim. App. S ept. 20, 2000) (not de signated for 2 publication). See Lavev. Dre tke , 4 44 F .3 d 3 33 , 3 34 (5 th C ir . 2 00 6) (“ At L ave ' s c a pit a l murd e r t

ri a l, 3 Of fi ce r K ev i nHu gh es , o n e o f th e s t at e's wi tn es s es , t es t i fi edas t o a s t at em entb y o n e o f Lav e's alleg ed ac complices. In the cour se of a n interrog ation, the ac complice told Off icer Hughes that L ave c ommitt ed the murde r.”) , cert. de nied sub nom. Lave v. Q uarterman , 127 S. Ct . 1482 (2007). 202 S.W .3d 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

4 541 U.S. 36 (2004). 5 Ex parte Lave , No. WR-44,564-02, 2007 Tex. C rim. App. Unpub. LEXI S 457, *1-2 6 (Tex. Crim. App. Sept. 7, 2007) (not designated f or publication). Petition for Writof Certiora ri, Lav ev . Te

x as, No. 07-6393 (U .S. Sept. 10, 2007). 7 appl i cat i on forw r i tof habe as corpus pur s uantt o A r t i cl e 11. 071. W e deni ed r el i ef. 2 I n hi s s ubs equent appl i cat i on ( t he one now on r emand) , appl i cantal l eged thathe w as d e n ied th e rig h t to c o n f

ro n t w itn e ss e s a g a in st h im in trial. H e a d m itt e d th a t th e leg a l b a sis 3 forhi s cl ai m d ep en ded on t hi s C our tover r ul i ng i t s pr evi ous opi ni on i n E x p a rte K e ith , i n 4

w h ich w e h e ld th a t C r aw f or d v. W as hi ngt on w oul d not be appl i ed r et r oact i vel yi n a Texas

5 sta te- c o u rt c o llate ra l p ro c e e d in g . B e c a u se a p p lica n t h a d n o t as se rte d th a t a n e w , p re v io u sly unavai l abl e, l egal bas i s exi s t ed w hen he f i l ed hi s s ubs equentappl i cat i on, t hi s C our thel d t hat h e h a d f a iled to sh o w th a t h e w a s e n tit led to re v iew o f h is s u b se q u e n t cl a im u n d e r A rticle 1 1 .0 7 1 , S e c tio n 5 (a )(1 ). W e d ism iss e d th e a p p lica tio n a s a n a b u se o f th e w rit a n d d e n ied h is

m ot i on fors t ayof exe cut i on. 6 A ppl i c a n t t h e n f

i l e d a p e t i t i o n f

o r a wr i t o f c e r t i o r a r i a n d a n a p p l i c a t i o n f o r s t ay of

exec ut i on i n t he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our t
. T he di s t r i ctcour t i n D al l as C ount yw i t hdr ew 7L ave Pag e 3

Lave v. Texas , 128 S.Ct . 1442 (2008). 8 128 S.Ct . 1029 (2008). 9 127 S.Ct . 1173 (2007). 10 Da nfo rth ,128 S.Ct . at 1032-33 (f ootnote omitted). 11 t h e o r d e r s e t t i n g a n e x e c u t i o n d a t e . On Fe b r u a r y 2 5 , 2 0 0 8 , t h e Su p r e me Cou r t gr ant ed appl i cant ’ s pet i t i on fora w r i tof cer t i or ar i , vaca t ed t hi s C our t ’ s j udgm ent , and r emanded t he

cas e t o t hi s C our t forfur t hercons i der at i on i n l i ghtof D a n fo rth v . Min n e so ta . 8 9 I n W hor t on v. B ockt i ng , t he Supr eme C our tm ade clea r t hatfede r al l aw does not 10 requir e s t at e cour t s t o appl yt he hol di ng i n C raw f ordt o cas es t hat w er e fi nal w hen C raw f ord

w as deci ded. I n D a n

fo rth , the S u p rem e C o u rtg ran ted c erti o rari t o co n side r w h ethe r Teague

o ra n yo t h e rf

e d e r a l r u l e o f

l a w p ro h ib its t hem from doi ng s o. T he ans w erw as no: N ew cons t i tut i onal r ul es announce d byt hi s C o u rt tha tpl ace cer t ai n ki nds of pr i m ar yi ndi vi dual conductbey ond t he pow er o f t he St at es t o pr os cr i be, as w ell as “w atersh ed ” rules o f c ri m inal p roc ed u re, m u st be ap p li ed in all fu ture t r i al s , al l cas es pendi ng on di r ectr evi ew , and al l feder al habea s corpus p ro c e e d in g s. A ll o th e r n e w ru les o f c r im in a l p ro c e d u re m u st b e a p p lied in fut ur e t r i a l s a n d i n c a s e s p e n d i n g o n d i r e c t r e v i e w, b u t ma y n o t p r o v i d e t he bas i s fora feder al col l at er al at t ack on a s t at e- cour tconvi ct i on. T hi s i s t he s ubs t ance of t he “ Teague ru le” d e sc rib e d b y Ju stic e O ' C o n n o r in h e r p lu ra lity opi ni on i n Teague v. Lane , 489 U
. S. 28 8 , 1 0 9 S. C t
. 1060, 103 L
. E d. 2d 334 (19 8 9 ). T h e q u esti o n in this c ase is w h ethe r Teague c o n stra in s th e a u th o rity of s t at e cour t s t o gi ve broa der eff ect t o new r ul es of cr i m i nal pr ocedur e t han i s r equi r ed byt hatopi ni on. W e have nevers ugges t ed t hati tdo es, a n d now h o ld th a t itd o e s n o t. 11 T h at i s, fe d era l l aw n eit h er r equi r es s t at e cour t s t o appl yt he hol di ng i n C r aw f or d t o cas es that w ere fin al w h en that ca se w as d ec ided , n o r p ro h ib its t hem from doi ng s o.L ave Pag e 4

10 S.W .3d 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). 12 Id. at 679. 13 202 S.W .3d at 771. 14 But see Ex

parte John Avalos Alba , _

__ S.W. __ _, No . AP- 75 ,5 10 , 2 00 8 T e x. Crim. 15 App. LEXI S 691, at 47-48 n. 35 (Te x . Crim. App. June 9, 2008) ( Price, J., dis senting ) (“ To the extent that thi s assertion [that Article 11.071 is not availableto remedy some potential future constitutional viol ation] embrace s a notion that constitutional viol ations that have not a lrea dy been f irmly established in ca se law a re not c ognizable in habeas c orpus, this pronounceme nt, for I n T a y lo r v . S ta te , w hi ch pr edat ed bot h B ockt i ngand D a n fo rth , w e had he l d t hat 12 “The Supre m e C our t ’ s r et r oact i vi t yanal y s i s forfede r al cons t i t ut i onal er r or s i s bi ndi ng upon th e s ta te s w h e n f

e d e ra l c o n s tit u t i o n a l e rr o rs a re in v o lv e d . . . . C o n v e rs e ly, G riffith and Teague d o n o t b in d th e sta tes o n th e re tro a c tiv ityo f n e w ru les u n d e r sta te la w .” T h u s, in 13 E x p a rte K e ith

– w h ic h this C o u rtd ec ided b ef o re e ith er B ockt i ngo r D a n fo rth w ere deci ded–w e appl i ed Teague a n d h e l d t h a tb e c a u s e t he C ra w for d ru le d o e s n o t n e c e ss a rily i m pr ove t he t r i al cour t ' s t rut h- fi ndi ng capa bi l i ti es, nors er i ous l ydi m i ni s h t he l i kel i hood of

an acc ur at e convi ct i on, i t i s not s ubject t o the Teague e x c e p tio n a n d d o e s n o t ap p ly

r et r oact i vel yt o cas es on col l at er al r evi ew . I n B ockt i ng , t he Supr eme C our thel d, as w e had 14 al r eadyhel d i n K e ith , t hatt he C raw f ord rule d id notm eett he Teague e x c e p tio n . A n d in D a n fo rth , t he Supr eme C our thel d t hats t at e cour t s ar e notr equi r ed t o fol l ow t he fe der al

r et r oact i vi t ypr i nci pl es expr es s ed i n Teague
. A l t hough notr equi r ed by t he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme Court t o do s o, w e adher e t o our
r et r oact i vi t yanal y s i s i n K e ith a n d its h o ld in g th a t C raw f ord d o e s n o t a p p ly re tro a c tiv e lyto
cas es o n col l at er al r evi ew i n T exas s t at e cour t s . W e aga i n di s m i s s t hi s s ubs equent 15L ave Pag e 5

which no authority

is cited, sounds vaguely

like the fe deral restriction on the c ognizabili ty of new claims in habea s corpus e mbodied in Teague v. Lane , 489 U.S. 288, 109 S.C t. 1060, 103 L .Ed. 2d 334 (1989). B ut the Teagueru leis also gro un de d in princ ipl e s o f c omi ty

and de fe re nc e to state cour ts, which haveno application in state ha beas c orpus jurisprudenc e. Cf. Danforth v. Minn eso ta , 5 5 2 U. S
. _

_ _ , 1 2 8 S
. C t
. 1 0 2 9 , 1 0 4 1 , 1 6 9 L
. E d
. 2 d 8 5 9 (2 0 0 8 ) ( ‘If any

th i n g, c on sid e ratio ns of

c omi ty mil itatein f

avo r o f allo wi ngstatec ourt s to gra nt h a be a s c or pu s r e lie f t o a broa der c lass of individuals than is require d by Tea gue.’) . Iam not awa

re that we haveever adopted suc h a ruleof cognizabili ty in Texas.”). Ex parte He liberto Chi , ___ S.W . ___, No. AP-75,930/931, 2008 Tex. C rim. App. LEXI S 690, at *34-35 n. 35 (Te x . Crim. App. June 9, 2008) (Price , J ., dissenting) (same)
. We also de ny

a pp lic ant’ s mo tio n f

or se tti nga brie fi ngsc he du leand

or a l argume nt. 16 a p p lica tio n f

o r w rit o f h a b e a s co rp u s u n d e r T e x a s C o d e o f C rim in a l P ro c e d u re , A r ti c le 11. 071, Sect i on 5. 16

D el i ver ed: J une 25, 2008 P ub l i sh