## IN TH E C OU RTOF C RI MIN A L A PP EA LS O F T E XAS N O . A P –75, 510 EX PA R TE JO H N A V A LO S A LB A , A ppl i c ant ON AP P LI CAT I ON F OR A W RI T OF HABE AS CORP US

FROM CO LLI N CO UNTY

M E YE RS , J ., a n n o u n c e d th e ju d g m e n t o f th e C o u r t a n d d e liv e r e d a n o p in io n in w hi c h K ELL ER , P. J. , and K EASLE R , and H ERVEY , J J ., jo in e d . C OCHRAN , J. , f i l e d a c onc ur r i ng o pi ni on i n w hi c h W OMACK , J ., jo in e d . P RI CE , J. , f i l e d a di s s e nt i ng o p in io n . 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 ., jo in e d .

O P I N I O N A p p lica n t w a s f

o u n d g u iltyo f

c a p ital m u rd e r a n d , p u rsu a n t to th e ju ry ’s a n sw e rs to the s peci al i s s ues , the tr i al courtas s es s ed a s ent ence of dea th. I n A lb a v . S ta te , 905 S. W . 2d 581 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. 1995) , w e af fi r m ed the convi ct i on and s ent ence . A ppl i cant th e n f iled a n a p p lica tio n f

o r w rit o f

h a b e a s c o rp u s, w h ich w e d e n ied . In 2 0 0 0 , the F if th C i r cui tr ever s ed A ppl i cant ’ s s ent ence and r emanded the ca s e fora new s ent enci ngAlba–Pag e 2

Unless otherw ise specif

ied, all re ference s to “Article”ref er to Te x as Code of Criminal 1 Procedure. h e a rin g . B a se d o n th e se c o n d ju ry ’s a n sw e rs to th e sp e c ial iss u e s, A p p lica n t w a s a g a in s e n te n c e d to d e a th . W e a f f ir m e d th e s e n te n c e o n a p p e a l a n d a g a in d e n ie d h a b e a s re lie f. A ppl i cantdi d notr ai s e cl ai m s r el at ed t o the l ethal - i nj ect i on pr ocedur e unt i l he fi l ed for fede r al habea s corpus r el i ef. A s a r es ul t , the fe der al di s tr i ctcourtdet erm i ned thatthe c la im w a s u n e x h a u s te d a n d o rd e re d A p p lic a n t to ra is e th e is s u e in s ta te c o u rt . A ccordi ng l y , A pp l i cant fi l ed thi s subsequ ent appl i cat i on for w ri tof h abeas co rpus, c laim in g th a t th e c h e m ica l p ro to c o l u se d f o r le th a l in

jec tio n is u n c o n stitu tio n a l b e c a u se it m aycaus e unnec es s arypai n. W e fi l ed and s etthi s cas e t o det erm i ne w hethera cl ai m t hat th e leth a l-in

jec tio n p ro to c o l m a yv io late th e c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts o f th e c o n d e m n e d is c o g n iza b le in a w rit o f

h a b e a s c o 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 rticle 11. 071. W e hol d t hati ti s notand di s m i s s the appl i cat i on.

1 ARG UM ENTS OF THE PARTI ES A ppl i cantcont ends thatthe part i cul arthr ee- drug cockt ai l curr ent l yus ed bythe St at e of Texas t o admi ni s t era dea th s ent ence byl ethal i nj ect i on confl i ct s w i th A r t i cl e 1, Sect i on 13 of the Texas C ons t i tut i on, w hi ch r equi r es thatthe dea th s ent ence be admi ni s t er ed i n a mannercomport i ng w i th the di gni tyof m an, and the Ei ghth and Four t eenth A m endment s of the U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on, w hi ch pr ohi bi tcruel and u n u s u a l p u n is h m e n t.Alba–Pag e 3

A ccordi ng t o A pp l i cant, the d rug com binat i on used in the lethal- i nject i on process is u n c o n s titu tio n a l b e c a u s e it c a rr ie s a s tr o n g lik e lih o o d o f c re a tin g g ra tu ito u s s u f

f e ri n g . A ppl i cants t at es thatthe fi r s tdrug admi ni s t er ed, s odi um thi opent al , i s a fa s t - act i ng barbi tur at e or di nar i l yus ed t o i nduce unc ons ci ous nes s i n a s ur gi cal pat i entfora br i ef per i od of t i m e, butthe ane s thet i c bene fi t s of s odi um thi opent al ar e neutr al i zed upon a d m in is tr a tio n o f

th e s e c o n d d ru g , p a n c u ro n iu m b ro m id e , a ls o k n o w n a s P a v u lo n . A ddi t i onal l y , A ppl i cants t at es thatthe panc ur oni um br om i de i s unnece s s aryi n the l ethal i nj ect i on pr oces s and w oul d r es ul ti n needl es s pai n beca us e i tpar al y zes the s kel et al and vol unt arym us cl es , buthas no eff ecton cons ci ous nes s oron per cept i on of pai n. T he s econd drug s erves onl yt o m as k the pai nful eff ect s of the thi r d drug i nj ect ed, butw oul d notpr eventhi m fr om exper i enci ng pai n w hi l e dy i ng. Fi nal l y , A ppl i cantar gues thatt he admi ni s tr at or s of the i nj ect i ons ar e untr ai ned i n anes thes i ol ogyand, ther efor e, i m pr oper and i nad equ at e anest heti zat i on occu rs du ri ng the ex ecuti on process. T he St at e ar gues thata w r i tof habe as corpus i s notthe pr opervehi cl e t o s eek re lief. S in c e A p p lica n t is n o t co n tes tin g th e v a lid ityo f h is c o n v ictio n o r h is d e a th se n ten c e , b u t co n ten d s th a t th e m a n n e r o f p ro p o se d e x e c u tio n is u n c o n stitu tio n a l, his c o m p lain t is n o t co g n iza b le u n d e r A rticle 1 1 .0 7 1 . B e c a u se th e a p p lica tio n d o e s n o t r eques tr el i ef f

r om hi s convi ct i on ordeath s ent ence , r atheri ts eeks onl yt o chal l enge a c irc u m sta n c e o f

h is c o n v ictio n , h a b e a s c o rp u s c a n n o t p ro v id e a re m e d y . T h e S tate c o n ten d s th a t th e L e g isla tu re g ra n ted th e a u th o rityto d e ter m in e th e sp e c if ic le th a l-Alba–Pag e 4

i nj ect i on pr oces s t o the Texas D epart m entof C r i m i nal J us t i ce, ther ebym aki ng i tout s i de th e s c o p e o f

h a b e a s c o rp u s . T he St at e al s o ar gues thatA ppl i cant ’ s cl ai m s ar e noty etr i pe forcons i der at i on beca us e hi s exec ut i on dat e i s noti m m i nent . A s a r es ul t , the Texas D epart m entof C r i m i nal J us t i ce maypl an t o us e a di ffe r entconcoc t i on, orthe cons t i tut i onal i tyof the c u rre n t co c k tail m a yh a v e b e e n re so lv e d w h e n th e d a te o f A p p lica n t’s e x e c u tio n is sch ed u led. A d d it ion all y , o ther a v en u es a re a v ail ab le, su ch as in jun cti o n , m an d am u s, o r a ci vi l - r i ght s l aw s ui t . Fi nal l y , beca us e the Texas l ethal - i nj ect i on pr ot ocol has been i n pl ace , unchange d, s i nce 1982, the fa ctual bas i s forA ppl i cant ’ s cl ai m i s notnew . T her efor e, t he St at e ar gues thatthe r equi r ement s forfi l i ng an A r t i cl e 11. 071, Sect i on 5, habea s appl i cat i on have notbeen metbeca us e A ppl i cantcoul d have a s s ert ed hi s chal l enge t o the d ru g m ix tu re in a n e a rl ie r a p p lic a tio n . A N A L Y S IS A n a p p lica tio n f

o r a w rit o f

h a b e a s c o rp u s m u st s tate a c laim th a t, i f tru e , w o u ld enti t l e t he ap pli cant t o h abeas rel i ef. A nd , the clai m m ustchall eng e t he judgm ent agai nst the appl i cantors eek t o change hi s s ent ence . A s w e s t at ed i n E x P a rte L o c ke tt , 956 S. W . 2d 41, 42 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. 1997) , the r el i ef s oughtm us tr eques ta cha nge of e i ther the fa ctorthe l ength of conf i nement . A w r i tappl i cat i on fi l ed pur s uantt o A r t i cl e 11. 071 m u st s e e k “ re lief

f ro m a ju d g m e n t im p o sin g a p e n a ltyo f d e a th .” A d e a th -p e n a ltyw rit appl i cat i on thatdoes notchal l enge the val i di tyof the under l y i ng j udgm entand w hi ch,Alba–Pag e 5

even i f m er i t or i ous , w oul d notr es ul ti n i m m edi at e r el i ef f r om a capi t al - m ur derconvi ct i on o r d e a th s e n te n c e , is n o t a p ro p e r a p p lic a tio n f o r p u rp o s e s o f

A rt ic le 1 1 .0 7 1 . S e e Ex P art e Kerr , 64 S. W . 3d 414, 419 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. 2002) . T he i s s ue i n Kerrw as w hether a documentthatw as t i t l ed a w r i tappl i cat i on, butthatdi d notatt ack the convi ct i on or s ent ence , w as s uffi ci entt o cons t i tut e an i ni t i al appl i cat i on thatw oul d barcons i der at i on of a s ubs equentw r i tunderA r t i cl e 11. 071, Sect i on 5. W e det erm i ned thatthe i ni t i al d o c u m e n t d id n o t b a r th e su b se q u e n t w rit ap p lica tio n b e c a u se th e d o c u m e n t d id n o t sta te a cl ai m s eeki ng r el i ef f

r om the convi ct i on. H er e, w e ar e notcons i der i ng w hetherthe a p p lica tio n is s u f

f icie n t; w e a re d e ter m in in g w h e th e r th e re lief re q u e ste d is c o g n iza b le in a w r i tof habe as corpus . W hi l e the i s s ue undercons i der at i on di ffe r s i n thi s cas e, the d e ter m in a tio n is th e sa m e – in o rd e r to b e c o g n iza b le o n h a b e a s, a w rit ap p lica tio n is re q u ir e d to s ta te a c la im th a t c h a lle n g e s th e ju d g m e n t o r t h e s e n te n c e . A ppl i cantdoes notcl ai m thathe has been s ubj ect ed t o i l l egal cus t odyorunl aw ful oruncons t i tut i onal r es tr ai nt . H e does notchal l enge hi s ver di ctof gui l torthe s ent ence of d e a th ; h e m e re ly o p p o s e s th e s p e c if ic p ro to c o l u s e d to a d m in is te r t h e d ru g c o m b in a tio n . A s i m i l ari s s ue w as r ai s ed i n Hi l lv. McD onough , 547 U . S. 573 ( 2006) , i n w hi ch the S u p re m e C o u rt c o n sid e re d w h e th e r a c laim c h a llen g in g th e c o n stitu tio n a lityo f th e leth a li nj ect i on pr oces s had t o be r ai s ed i n an appl i cat i on forw r i tof habe as corpus orcoul d be r ai s ed as a ci vi l - r i ght s act i on. B eca us e the compl ai ntchal l enged the part i cul arm ethod thatw as l i kel ygoi ng t o be us ed forexec ut i on r atherthan cha l l engi ng the dea th s ent enceAlba–Pag e 6

i n gener al , the C our tdet erm i ned thatthe cha l l enge c oul d pr ocee d as a ci vi l - r i ght s act i on r atherthan i n a w r i tof habe as corpus . W hi l e Hill d e ter m in e d o n lyth a t th is typ e o f c laim d id n o t have to b e ra ise d o n h a b e a s ra th e r th a n th a t it c o u ld n o t be r ai s ed on habe as , t he C our t ’ s r eas oni ng i s i ns truct i ve. Si nce the r el i ef s oughtw oul d notfor ecl os e exe cut i on, and the clai m do es not chal l eng e t he sentence of death or seek t o est abli sh un l aw fulness thatw oul d r enderthe convi ct i on ors ent ence i nval i d, habea s corpus w as notthe pr oper m ethod forr ai s i ng the cl ai m . T he s ame i s true her e. A ppl i canti s notr eques t i ng r el i ef fr om hi s s ent ence , he i s s i m pl ychal l engi ng a ci r cumst ance of hi s s ent ence thatdoes not im p a c t th e leg a lityo f

h is c o n f in e m e n t. A p p lica n t’s c laim c h a llen g e s n e ith e r th e v a lid ity of the con vict i on no r the sentence of death, on l ythe m et ho d thatm aybe u sed t o im po se the dea th s ent ence . L i ke the Fl or i da l aw cons i der ed i n Hill , the s peci fi c mi xtur e us ed forl ethal i nj ect i on i s notm andat ed bys t atut e i n T exas . O urL egi s l atur e s t at ed i n C ode of Cri m i nal P ro c e d u re A rt ic le 4 3 .1 4 th a t, W heneve rthe s ent ence of dea th i s pr onounced a gai ns ta convi ct , the s ent ence s hal l be exe cut ed atanyt i m e af t erthe hourof 6 p. m . on the days et forthe exe cut i on, byi ntr avenous i nj ect i on of a s ubs t ance ors ubs t ance s i n a l ethal quant i tys uffi ci entt o caus e dea th and unt i l s uch convi cti s dead, s uch exec ut i on pr ocedur e t o be det erm i ned and s upervi s ed bythe D i r ect orof the in s titu tio n a l d iv is io n o f th e T e x a s D e p a rt m e n t o f C ri m in a l J u s tic e . T hus , even i f the mi xtur e curr ent l yus ed forl ethal i nj ect i on i s det erm i ned t o vi ol at e theAlba–Pag e 7

We note that the Supreme Court re cently held in Baze v. R ees , 128 S. Ct . 1520 (2008) 2 that the Kentuc ky

lethal-injec tion procedure, which use s the same thre e-dr ugcombination as Texas, does not violate the Eighth Amendment. I f the Dire ctor c hose a me thod of execution that had been deter mined to be 3 unconstitutional, such as the dissent’s example of the Director choosingto have the A

pplicant “ drawn and qu art e re d, ”hewo uld

besu bje c t to a writ o f p ro hib iti on . This e xamp leis irre le va nt, however, since thestatute specif ies that the sentenc e shall be e x ecute d by lethal injection. E ig h th A m e n d m e n t, A p p lica n t w o u ld still n o t b e e n tit led to re lea se o r re trial– h e w o u ld 2 sti ll b e su b

ject t o the s am e se n tenc e, w h ich w o u ld b e c arried o u t using a d iffe ren t m ixture as det erm i ned bythe Texas D epart m entof C r i m i nal J us t i ce. A ddi t i onal l y , the thr ee- drug 3 m i xtur e A ppl i cantcompl ai ns aboutm aynoteven be us ed w hen the dat e of hi s exec ut i on i s s et . T her efor e, anycons i der at i on of the mer i t s w oul d r es ul ti n a dec l ar at oryj udgm ent a n d w o u ld n o t r e s u lt in re lie f f o r A p p lic a n t. S e e E

x P a rte P u c ke tt , 274 S. W . 2d 696, 697 (1954 ) ( st at i ng , “T his cou rti s not autho ri zed to entera declar at oryj ud gm ent. ”) B ecause A ppl i canthas notr ai s ed a c l ai m that , i f true, w oul d ent i t l e hi m t o r el i ef, thi s cl ai m i s not c o g n iz a b le o n h a b e a s . A ppl i canti s es s ent i al l yas ki ng us t o i ncr eas e the s cope of A r t i cl e 11. 071 t o i ncl ude pos s i bl e futur e cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i ons . W e dec l i ne t o do s o. T hi s goes t o the i s s ue of r i penes s r atherthan cogni zabi l i ty . T he func t i on of A r t i cl e 11. 071 i s t o addr es s vi ol at i ons th a t h a v e o c c u rre d . T h is is w h ya c laim c h a llen g in g th e im p lem e n tatio n o f a d e a th s e n te n c e is n o t r ip e o n d ir e c t a p p e a l. S e e G a llo v . S ta te , 239 S. W . 3d 757, 780 ( T ex. C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ). H a b e a s c o rp u s s e rv e s to re m e d ye x istin g c o n stitu tio n a l v io latio n s; it is notforcl ai m s thata s t atut e maypot ent i al l ybe appl i ed i n a w aythatm aypos s i bl ybeAlba–Pag e 8

det erm i ned t o be uncons t i tut i onal i n the futur e. W e do notgr anthabea s corpus r el i ef on a n a b s tr a c t p ro p o s itio n . See W alkerv. W

ai nw r ight , 390 U . S. 335, 336 ( 1968) ( s t at i ng,

“ W h a tev e r its o th e r f

u n c tio n s, th e g re a t an d c e n tra l o f f ice o f th e w rit o f

h a b e a s c o rp u s is to tes t th e leg a lityo f

a p riso n e r’s c u rre n t d e ten tio n .”); B ai l ey v . G al lagher , 75 W n. 2d 260, 265- 266 ( 1969) ( “The funct i on of a w r i tof habe as corpus i s t o i nqui r e i nt o the l egal i t yof the part i cul arr es tr ai ntbei ng then i m pos ed upon the pet i t i oner . I ti s nott o i nqui r e i nt o the v a lid ity o f

s o m e f u tu re re s tr a in t th a t m a yo r m a yn o t b e im p o s e d .” ) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ). H ow ever , r i penes s i s notthe i s s ue bef or e us . T he i s s ue bef

or e us i s w hetherA ppl i cant h a s ra ise d a c laim th a t is p ro p e rlyc o n sid e re d u n d e r A rticle 1 1 .0 7 1 . B e c a u se A p p lica n t is notcompl ai ni ng aboutthe s ent ence of dea th, w e hol d thatA r t i cl e 11. 071 i s notthe pr oper a v e n u e f o r r e lie f. F i n a l l y , Ap p l i c a n tp o i n t s t o o u rc o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t i me - c r e d i tc l a i ms , o u t - o f - t i me appea l s , and par ol e- r evoca t i on cl ai m s as an i ndi cat i on thati s s ues otherthan thos e dea l i ng w i th th e l e g a l i tyo f

th e c o n f i n e m e n to rth e s e n t e n c e a r e c o g n i z a b l e h a b e a s c l a i m s . We d i s a g r e e . P a r o l e r e v o c a t i o n c l a i ms d e a l wi th th e f a c to f c o n f i n e me n t , t i me - c r e d i tc l a i ms deal w i th the dur at i on of the conf i nement , and both s eek r el eas e fr om cus t ody . O ut - oft i m e appe al s ar e r eques t s t o l i fta pr ocedur al bari n or dert o have he ar d the mer i t s of the under l y i ng habea s cl ai m , w hi ch mustchal l enge the ver di ctof gui l torthe l egal i tyof the c o n f in e m e n t. CO NC L US I ONAlba–Pag e 9

A ppl i canthas notbr oughtfor th anycl ai m s att acki ng the l egal i tyof hi s convi ct i on o r se n ten c e a n d h a s n o t ra ise d a n yiss u e s w h ich , if re so lv e d in h is f a v o r, w o u ld e n tit le h im to a n e w trial o r a n e w se n ten c in g h e a rin g . T h e re f o re , A p p lica n t’s c laim is n o t co g n iza b le underA r t i cl e 11. 071. T he appl i cat i on forw r i tof habe as corpus i s di s m i s s ed.

M ey ers , J.

D el i ver ed: J une 9, 2008 P ub l i sh