## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS N O . A P - 76, 263
EX PA R TE BR I A N ED W A R D D A V I S, A ppl i c ant
O N A PPL I C A TIO N FO R W R I T O F H A BE A S C O R PU S I N C A U SE

NO. 6 1 6 5 2 2 I N T HE 2 3 0 DI S TR I CT COURT TH HA RRI S CO UNTY
P e r C u r ia m . K ELL ER , P. J. , de l i ve r e d a di s s e nt i ng o pi ni on i n w hi c h M E YE RS , K EASLE R , and H ERVEY , JJ . , j oi ne d. O P I N I O N In th is c a u se , w e tak e th e u n u su a l ste p o f re c o n sid e rin g , o n o u r ow n in iti a tiv e , a c laim
r ai s ed i n a pr evi ous appl i cat ion forw r i tof habe as corpus i n a capi t al m ur dercas e, but
re je c te d b yth is C o u rt in a n o rd e r i s s u e d in 2 0 0 2
. In Ju n e 1 9 9 2 , a juryco n v ict ed ap p li ca n t of the o ff en se o f c ap it al m u rde r. T h e jury
a n sw e re d th e sp e c ial iss u e s s u b m itt e d p u rsu a n t to 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 37. 071, and the tr i al court , acc or di ngl y , s et puni s hm ent at death. T his C o u rt af fi r m edB ri an E d w ard D av is - 2

a p p lic a n t’ s c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e o n d ir e c t a p p e a l. D a v is v . S ta te , N o. A P- 71, 513, publ i s hed i n partat961 S.W
. 2 d 156 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. 1998)
. A ppl i cantfi l ed hi s i ni t i al ap p li ca ti o n fo r a w ri t o f ha b ea s co rpu s in the co n v ict ing co u rto n Ju ly2 8 , 1 9 9 7
. T h is C o u rt d e n i e d re lie f
. E

x p a rte D a v is , N o. W R
- 40, 339- 01 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. M ar ch 10, 1999) ( not d esig n ated fo r pu b li ca ti o n ). A p p li ca n t l ater filed th ree m o re h ab ea s ap p li ca ti o n s w h ich w ere al l di s m i s s ed forfai l i ng t o s at i s fythe r equi r ement s for a subs equentw r i tunderA r t i cl e 11. 071 § 5. E x p a rte D a v is , N o. W R
- 40, 339- 02 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. S ep t. 1 3 , 2000) ( notdes i gnat ed forpubl i cat i on) ; N o. W R
- 40, 339- 03 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. A pri l 29, 2002) ( notdes i gnat ed for publ i cat i o n ); and N o. W R
- 40, 339- 04 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. M ay7, 2002) ( notdes i gnat ed for p u b lic a tio n ). A p p lica n t f

iled a n o th e r su b se q u e n t ap p lic a ti o n ra isin g a m e n tal re tar d a tio n c laim
u n d er A tkin s v . V

irg in ia , 536 U
. S. 304 ( 2002) , w hi ch thi s C our thel d s at i s fi ed the
r equi r ement s of S ect i on 5. A ft er r emandi ng the cas e t o the tr i al court , thi s C our tfound that
a p p lic a n t w a s n o t m e n ta lly re ta rd e d a n d d e n ie d h im re lie f
. E x p a rte D a v is , N o. W R
- 40, 339- 05 (Tex
. C ri m . A pp . M ar. 29 , 20 06 )( no tdesi gn at ed fo r p u b licat i on ). T he C ou rtal so det erm i ned thatt he P en ry II /nul l i fi cat i on cl ai m r ai s ed i n appl ican t’ s fi fth s ubs equent appl i cat i on m etthe r equi r ement s of A r t i cl e 11. 071 § 5, and w e r emanded the ca s e t o the tr i al
c o u rt to c o n s id e r a p p lic a n t’ s c la im
. E x p a rte D a v is , N o. W R
- 40, 339- 06 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. M ar . 29, 2006) ( not des i gnat ed forpubl i cat i on)
. B utbeca us e of c hanges i n the l aw s i nce the tim e th a tw e rem and ed thatcase, w e subseq uen t l ydeterm i ned that appl i cant’ s fi fthB ri an E d w ard D av is - 3

s u b s e q u e n t ap p lica tio n sh o u ld b e d ism iss e d . H o w e v e r, th e sa m e c h a n g e s th a t led u s to di s m i s s appl i cant ’ s fi fth s ubs equentw ri t ap p l i cat i on have l ed us t o the conc l us i on thatt he P en ry II /n u lli f ica tio n c laim , w h ich w a s p r e v io u s ly ra ise d in h is s e c o n d su b se q u e n t w rit
a p p lic a tio n a n d d is m is s e d b yth is C o u rt , s h o u ld b e re c o n s id e re d
. S e e E x p a rte D a v is , N o. W R
- 40, 339- 03 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. A pr i l 29, 2002) ( or derdi s m i s s i ng ap p l i c a t i o n n o td e s i g n a t ed forpubl i cat i on)
. I ti s t o thatcl ai m w e now turn. I n hi s s econd s ubs equentw r i tappl i cat i on, appl i cantal l eged thatthe nul l i fi cati on in stru c tio n in th e c h a rg e to h is ju ryd id n o t a ll o w th e ju r y to c o n sid e r a n d g iv e e f f e c t to
m itig a tin g e v id e n c e p re s e n te d a t h is tr ia l in v io la tio n o f th e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t. See P enry
v. Johns on (“ P en ry II

” ), 5 3 2 U .S . 7 8 2 (2 0 0 1 ). A tthe conc l us i on of the puni s hm ent phas e of appl i cant ’ s tr i al , the j ury w as gi ven the del i ber at enes s and futur e danger ous nes s i ns truct i ons as di ct at ed byA r t i cl e 37. 071( b)
. T he tr ial co u rtalso su b m itted th e f o ll o w ing su p p lem en tal /nu ll ifi ca ti o n instruction to ap p li ca n t’ s j u ry: Y ou are i ns truct ed thatw hen y ou del i ber at e on the ques t i ons pos ed i n the s p e c i a l i s s u e s , yo u a r e t o c o n s i d e ra l l r e l e v a n t m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s , i f a n y, s uppor t ed bythe evi dence pr es ent ed i n both phas es of t h e tr ial , w hether pr es ent ed bythe St at e orthe def endant
. A m i t iga t i ng ci r cumst ance m ay inclu d e, bu t i s n o t l im it ed to, anyasp ec t of the d ef en d an t’ s ch ara cter, backgr ound, r ecor d, emot i onal i ns t abi l i ty , i nt el l i gence or ci r cumst ance s of the c rim e w h ich y o u b e liev e c o u ld m a k e a d e a th se n ten c e in a p p ro p ria te in th is cas e. I f y ou fi nd thatther e ar e anym i t i gat i ng ci r cumst ance s i n thi s cas e, y ou m us tdeci de how m uch w ei ghtthey d es erve and ther eaf t er , gi ve ef

fec tand cons i der at i on t o them i n as s es s i ng the defenda nt ’ s per s onal cul pabi l i tyatthe t i m e y ou ans w er the s peci al i s s ue. I f y ou det erm i ne, w hen gi vi ng eff ectt o the m i t i gat i ng evi dence , i f any , thata l i fe s ent ence, as r efl ect ed bya nega t i veB ri an E d w ard D av is - 4

fi ndi ng t o the i s s ue undercons i der at i on, r atherthan a de at h sen tenc e, i s an appr opr i at e r es pons e t o the per s on al c u lpabi l i tyof the def endant , a nega t i ve fi ndi ng s houl d be gi ven t o t hats peci al i s s ue undercons i der at i on. T he nul l i fi cat i on i ns truct i on gi ven t o appl i cant ’ s j uryi s near l yi dent i cal t o the i ns truct i on that
w as ati s s ue i n P en ry II
. See P enry , 532 U
. S. at 790 ( “I f y ou det erm i ne, w hen gi vi ng eff ect to th e m iti g a tin g e v id e n c e , if a n y , tha t a life se n ten c e , a s re f lec ted b ya n e g a tiv e f

in d in g to the i s s ue under cons i der at i on, r ather than a death s ent ence , i s an appr opr i at e r es pons e t o the per s onal cul pabi l i tyof the def endant , a nega t i ve fi ndi ng s houl d be gi ven t o one of the s peci al issue s. ”). Fur therm or e, the mi t i gat i ng evi dence pr es ent ed byappl i canti s the s or tof evi dence thatthi s C our thas s ai d i s notencompas s ed w i thi n the form er s t atut orys peci al i s s ues . T he j uryw as pres ented w i th ev i den ce t hat appl i cant s uff ered from severe l earni ng dis abil i ties, funct i onal i l l i t er acy , chi l dhood head i nj ur i es , defi ci t s i n s oci al funct i oni ng, drug and al cohol “depe ndency ” byage f

i ft een, and a phy s i cal l yvi ol entand emot i onal l ytr aumat i c upbr i ngi ng. M uch of thi s evi dence i s the type of e vi dence forw hic h the j urys houl d have be en gi ven a
v e h ic le to g i v e it m e a n in g f u l c o n s id e ra tio n . See Ex par t e M ar t i nez , 233 S. W
. 3d 319, 320 ( T ex . C ri m . A pp. 2007) ( m ul t i pl e hos pi t al i zat i ons i n s t at e ps y chi atr i c fa ci l i t i es , abus e of
a lco h o l a t a you n g a g e , tro u b led c h ild h o o d ); s ee al s o E x par t e Mor eno , 245 S. W
. 3d 419, 422 (T ex . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 8 ) (trou b led c h il d h o o d ). T h e n u lli f

ica tio n in stru c tio n g iv e n to a p p lica n t’s ju ryw a s n o t a s u f f icie n t v e h icle to al l ow j ur or s t o gi ve meani ngful cons i der at i on and ful l eff ec t to the m i t i gat i ng evi denceB ri an E d w ard D av is - 5

pr es ent ed by appl i cant . B eca us e t he m i t i gat i ng evi dence pr es ent ed atappl i cant ’ s tr i al i s t he type of evi dence for w hi ch he w as ent i t l ed t o a sepa r at e and s uffi ci ent vehi cl e, w e r emand the ca s e t o the tr i al courtfora new puni s hm enthear i ng.

D el i ver ed: N ovember18, 2009 D o N ot Pub l i sh