T EX . C OD E C R IM . P R OC . art. 1 1
. 0 7 1 § 5 (a). 1 

## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS

OF TE XAS
N O . A P - 75, 370
EX PA R TE C H A R LE S D EA N H O O D , A ppl i c ant
ON RE CO NS I DE RA T I ON ON T HE CO UR T ’ S OW N MOT I ON OF AN AP P LI CAT I ON F OR A W RI T OF HABE AS CORP US

FROM CO LLI N CO UNTY
K EASLE R , J. , f

i l e d a di s s e nt i ng o pi ni on i n w hi c h K ELL ER , P. J. , and H ERVEY , J ., j oi ned .T h e p lu ra lityig n o re s th e lan g u a g e o f 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 1 1
. 0 7 1 , S ec ti o n 5 (a), p o sit s a f alse “ co n u n d rum , ” a n d reli es u p o n ca ses th at are d is tin g u is h a b le . B e c a u s e A rt ic le 1 1 .0 7 1 re q u ir e s th a t H o o d ’s a p p lic a tio n b e d is m is s e d , I d iss e n t. U nderA r t i cl e 11. 071, t he mer i t s of a subs equenthabea s appl i cat i on m aybe
cons i der ed onl yunderl i m i t ed ci r cumst ance s . A ti s su e h ere i s w hethert he l egal bas i s of 1H O O D D I S S E N T —2

T EX . C OD E C R IM . P R OC . art. 1 1
. 0 7 1 § 5 (a)(1). 2 T EX . C OD E C R IM . P R OC . art. 1 1
. 0 7 1 § 5 (d). 3 E x p a rte Sm ith , 9 7 7 S
. W
. 2 d 6 1 0 , 6 1 1 (T ex . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 8 ). 4 E x par t e H

ood , 2 1 1 S .W .3 d 7 6 7 , 7 7 0 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ). 5 H ood’ s cl ai m w as “unava i l abl e” on the dat e a pr evi ous ap p l i cat i on w as fi l ed. T he 2 L e g isla tu re h a s s p e c if

ica llyd e f

in e d w h a t itm e a n s f

o r a leg a l b a sis to b e “ u n a v a ilab le” : Forpurpos es of Subse ct i on ( a) ( 1) , a l egal bas i s of a c l ai m i s unavai l abl e on or befor e a da t e des cr i bed bySubse ct i on ( a) ( 1) i f the l egal bas i s w as not r ecogni zed byorcoul d nothave be en r eas on ab ly fo rm ul at ed fr om a fi nal deci s i on of t he U ni t ed S t at es Supr eme C our t , a cour t of appe al s of the U ni t ed St at es , ora cour t of appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on of t hi s s t at e on or befor e thatdat e. 3 W e ar e notatl i bert yt o i gnor e thi s defi ni t i on. A ddr es s i ng a pr i orl egi s l at i ve s cheme t hat p ro h ib ited th e c o n sid e ra tio n o f late -f ile d h a b e a s a p p lica tio n s, w e e m p h a siz e d o u r d u tyto enfor ce the l aw s w r i t t en byt he Legi s l atur e: O uroaths ar e t o uphol d t he co ns t i tut i ons and l aw s of thi s countr yand s t at e; they are n o t a com m i s s i on t o do w hata maj or i t yof us thi nk i s fai r . T hi s l aw w as pas s ed byt he l egi s l atur e and a ppr oved bythe governor , i n acc or dance w ith o u r c o n stitu tio n a l f o rm o f g o v e rn m e n t. T h e law is cle a r: th is co u rt sh a ll di s m i s s t hi s appl i cat i on beca us e i t w as fi l ed l at e. I f t he l aw i s barbaro u s, the l egis l ature shou l d repeal i tor the g ov ernor s ho uld com m ute orpardon tho se w h o a re su b

jec ted to it. In th e m e a n tim e , w e m u st f o llo w it. 4 T he pl ur al i t ydoes notpurpor tt o expl ai n how H ood has s how n t hat t he l egal bas i s of h is cu rre n t c laim w a s n o t a v a ilab le w h e n h e f iled h is p re v io u s a p p lica tio n b e c a u se it ca n n o t. N ot abl y , ther e i s not hi ng but s i l ence fr om J udge P r i ce, w ho agr eed w i t h ourdi s pos i t i on of thi s cas e on or i gi nal s ubm i s s i on. J udge Pr i ce’ s contr ary opi ni on t oday i s t he s ol e r eas on t hat 5H O O D D I S S E N T —3

P en ry v . Jo h n so n (

P en ry II) , 5 3 2 U .S . 7 8 2 (2 0 0 1 ). 6 P enr y v. Lynaugh , 4 9 2 U .S . 3 0 2 (1 9 8 9 ); see P en ry II, 532 U
. S. at798- 800. 7 Pl ur al i t yop. at18 n. 51. 8 y e s te rd a y ’s m in o ri ty v ie w is n o w th e la w . P en ry II, d ec ided in 2 0 0 1 , w as th e f ir st t im e tha t th e U n it ed S tat es S u p rem e C o u rt 6

ever s ai d that a nul l i fi cat i on i ns t ruct i on w oul d not s at i s fy t he di ct at es of P enr y I
. P en ry II 7

w as deci ded aft erappl i cant ’ s di r ectappea l , w her e he ha d r ai s ed a P enry ch all en g e, bu t bef o re appli cantfi l ed hi s s econd ha beas appl i cat i on, w her e he di d notr ai s e a P enry chal l enge. U n q u e stio n a b ly, th e n , H o o d ’s c u rre n t leg a l ch a llen g e c o u ld h a v e b e e n “ re a so n a b ly form ul at ed” f

r om t he Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n P en ry II
. T he pl ur al i t ycont ends t hatw e can “for gi ve” H ood for not r ecogni zi ng t hat he had a val i d P enry cl ai m , “b ec au se w e had noty etr ecogni zed thatfac tour s el ves . ” B utw hether 8 thi s C our t had re cogni zed t he val i di ty of a cl ai m i s notthe t es tunderA r t i cl e 11. 071, Sect i on 5 (a)(1); th e test, in p art, is w h ethe r th e c laim w as re co g n ized b ya d ec isi o n fro m an yco u rt
e n u m e ra ted in th e sta tu te. E v e n if th e v a lid ityo f

a c laim is n o t re c o g n ize d b yth is C o u rt, i t i s cons i der ed “a vai l abl e” unde rt he habe as s t atut e i f i ti s r ecogni zed by a dec i s i on fr om the U n ited S tate s S u p re m e C o u rt, a f e d e ra l ap p e a ls c o u rt, o r a T e x a s s tate a p p e a ls c o u rt. Th e t e s ta l s o i n c l u d e s whe t h e rt h e c l a i m c o u l d h a v e b e e n “ r e a s o n a b l yf o r mul at ed” fr om a dec i s i on of thi s C our torone of the othercourt s m ent i oned above
. T her e ar e many
c laim s th a t c a n b e re a so n a b ly f o rm u late d th a t w e d o n o t yet re c o g n ize a s v a lid . W e ro u tin e lyH O O D D I S S E N T —4

I d. 9 See Ex par t e H

ood , 211 S. W
. 3d at775. 10 1 3 2 S .W .3 d 4 0 7 (T e x . C ri m . A p p .), rev ’d , Sm i th v. Texas , 5 4 3 U
. S
. 3 7 (20 0 4 ). 11 See P lu ra lityo p . at 1 8 n .5 1 ; se e a lso Sm ith , 132 S. W
. 3d at416- 17. 12 gr antpet i t i ons fordi s cr et i onaryr evi ew t o cons i der s uch cl ai m s . W hen t he pl ur al i t y s ay s t hat
w e s houl d notexpec tH ood t o be “m or e pre s ci entt han our s el ves , ” i tr evea l s i t s confus i on: 9 T h e iss u e is w h e th e r a c laim is c o lo ra b le t o t he r equi r ed degr ee ( r ecogni zed byorcan be
rea so n ab lyfo rm u lat ed fro m a S u p rem e C o u rt , fe d era l circu it co u rt , o r T ex as a p p ell ate c o u rt deci s i on) , not w hether w e cur r ent l y r ecogni ze i t as t he cont r ol l i ng l aw i n T exas . T hi s i s w hy
w e w e re c o rre c t o n o rig in a l su b m iss io n w h e n w e sa id , “A n o th e r p o in t th a t d e se rv e s e m p h a sis is th a t lac k o f

re c o g n iti o n is n o t e n o u g h to re n d e r a l e g a l b a sis u n a v a ilab le. If th e leg a l b a sis coul d have be en r eas onabl yform ul at ed fr om a deci s i on i s s ued bya r equi s i t e court , t hen the
e x c e p tio n is n o t m e t.” 10 T he pl ur al i t yal s o s ugges t s t hatw e ca n “for gi ve” H ood’ s der el i ct i on beca us e of our deci s i on i n E

x p a rte Sm ith , w hi ch hel d t hat an unam bi guous nul l i fi cat i on i ns t ruct i on ( s uch 11

as t he one gi ven her e) w as s uffi ci ent l y di s t i ngui s habl e fr om t he i ns t ruct i on gi ven i n P en ry II
s o a s t o s a t i s f

y P enr y I
. T her e ar e tw o r eas ons thatourdeci s i on i n Sm ith coul d nothave 12 rendered app l icant ’s P enr y c la im “ u n a v a ila b le .” F ir s t, Sm ith w as nota U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our td eci s i on. A l t hough Sm ith had i nt erpr et ed P en ry II i n a mannerthatw as adver s e t o H ood, the Supr eme C our thad noty ethad occ as i on t o addr es s thati nt erpr et at i on.H O O D D I S S E N T —5

U
. S. S UP R EME C T . R
. 1 3 (1) (“U n less o therw ise p rov ided b y la w , a p eti ti o n fo r a 13 w ri t of ce rt iorari t o rev iew a j u d g m en t in any ca se, civil o r crim inal, en tered b y a state c o u rt of l as tr es or t. . . i s t i m el yw hen i ti s fi l ed w i t h t he C l erk of thi s C our tw i t hi n 90 day s aft er e n tr yo f th e ju d g m e n t.” ). See Sm i th v. Texas , 5 4 3 U
. S
. 3 7 (20 0 4 ). 14 S o the pos s i bi l i t yr emai ned thatt he Supr eme C our tcoul d di s agr ee w i t h ouri nt erpr et at i on. And a s l o n g a s t h a tp o s s i b i l i t yr e ma i n e d , t h e n , u n d e rt h e h a b e a s s t a tu t e , t h er e re m ai ned a Supr eme Courtdeci s i on— P en ry II

— f ro m w h ich H o o d ’s c laim c o u ld h a v e b e e n re a so n a b ly f o rm u la te d
. Second, ourdeci s i on i n Sm ith w as notfi nal w h en H o od fi l ed hi s appl i cat i on. T he deci s i on w as onl ya mont h ol d, l eavi ng the pos s i bi l i t yopen thatSm i t h coul d fi l e a pe t i t i on for w r i t of cert i or ar i w i t h t he Supr eme Court of t he U ni t ed St at es , have t h at pet i t i on 13 g r a n t e d , a n d u l t i ma t e l yo b t a i n a r e v e r s a l
. Tha t i s p r e c i s e l ywh a th a p p e n e d
. By 14 di s t i ngui s hi ng P en ry II ( as notappl i cabl e t o unambi g u o u s inst ruct i ons ) i n a publ i s hed opi ni on, ourdeci s i on i n Sm ith i n fac thi ghl i ght ed the i s s ue, so t hatno one coul d r el yon a lac k o f n o tice a s to th e iss u e ’s e x iste n c e . A n d b e c a u se it w a s th e f irst tim e th a t P en ry II

had b ee n d ist i ngui s hed i n t hatfas hi on, and the dec i s i on w as s t i l l s ubj ectt o Supr eme C o u rt
re v iew , itw a s c lea rlya liv e iss u e th a t a n y p e rso n f ili n g a c a p ital h a b e a s a p p lica tio n sh o u ld h a v e ta k e n in to a c c o u n t. Th e p l u r a l i t yc o n t e n d s t h a to u rs c h e me a n d th e f e d e r a l s c h e me c r e a t e a “ c o n u n d ru m” b e c a u se “ a d e a th -ro w in m a te m u st a rg u e in th is C o u rt th a t T enn ard , Sm ith , e t a l. announce d
new l aw , buthe must ar gue t hat t hos e s ame c as es s i m pl y r ei t er at ed cl ear l yes t abl i s hed l awH O O D D I S S E N T —6

Pl ur al i t yop. at16. 15 I d. at19. 16 See T EX . C OD E C R IM . P R OC . ar t . 11. 071 § 5. 17 See 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 (d )( 1 ). 18 once he arr i ves i n fede r al court . ” A s a re s ul t , t he pl ur al i t yconcl udes thatH ood “i s ent i t l ed 15 to re lief in o n e c o u rt o r th e o th e r.” E v e n if th is w e re tru e , tha t d o e s n o t g iv e u s lic e n se to 16 i gnor e a contr ol l i ng s t at e st atut e t hat r equi r es t he di s m i s s al of the s t at e habe as appl i cat i on. T h at an ap p li ca n t m ayinev it ab lyrec eive reli ef o n fe d era l hab ea s is ne v er a rea so n to ign o re the r equi r ement s of 11. 071. I f m ys t ance s eems har s h orunfai r , i ts houl d be r emem ber ed that onl ythe Legi s l atur e ca n r emedyt he s i tuat i on. T hi s cas e pr ovi des y etanotheregr egi ous
exam ple of j ud ges l egis l at i ng from t he b e n c h , ign ori ng w hat the m aj ori t yof o ur ci t i zens, thr ough thei rvar i ous s t at e r epr es ent at i ves , have de cl ar ed i s the l aw of the s t at e. N ev erthe less, the s o -ca ll ed “c o n u n d ru m ” d o es n o t r ea ll yex ist
. T h e statuto ry req u ir em en t th at a state h ab ea s claim b e “ n ew ” ap p li es o n ly to su b seq u en t ap p li ca ti o n s. If 17 a cl ai m i s fi l ed i n an i ni t i al s t at e habe as appl i cat i on, bot h the s t at e and f eder al cour t s m ay
c o n s i d e ra c l a i m ba s e d o n l o n g - s t a n d i n g , f i r ml ye s t a b l i s h e d f

e d e r a l c o n s t i tu t i o n a l l aw . I n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f

c o u n s e l c l a i m s , f

o re x a m p l e , t e n d t o b e o f th i s v a r i e t y. E ven i f w e ar e j us t cons i der i ng s ubs equent appl i cat i ons , a cl ai m coul d eas i l yqual i fy
a s “ n e w ” in sta te h a b e a s c o u rt a n d y e t b e su b jec t to c o n sid e ra tio n u n d e r th e “ u n re a so n a b le appl i cat i on of cl ear l yes t abl i s hed l aw ” s t andar d i n fede r al cour t . T hi s w oul d occuri f the 18H O O D D I S S E N T —7

See H ood , 211 S. W
. 3d at776- 77. 19 See Ex par t e M

cFarland , 1 6 3 S
. W
. 3 d 7 4 3 , 7 4 8 (T ex . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 5 ). 20 E x par t e M

cFarland , 1 6 3 S .W .3 d a t 7 4 8 ; E x par t e D r ake , 883 S. W
. 2d 213, 215 21 (T ex . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 4 ). S u p rem e C our tannounce d a new rul e of c ons t i tut i onal l aw , a dea t h- r ow i nm at e r ai s ed a cl ai m based o n thi s new rule i n a sub sequen tst at e hab eas app l i cat i on that w as hi s fi rs t
a p p lica tio n f

iled a f ter th e n e w ru le w a s a n n o u n c e d , an d th is C o u r t h e ld a g a in st th e in m a te in a n o p in io n th a t u n re a s o n a b ly ap p lie d th a t n e w ly es ta b lis h e d ru le
. Fur t her , as w e expl ai ned i n ouropi ni on on or i gi nal s ubm i s s i on, t he i nt erpl aybetw een the l aw of cogni zabi l i t yand t he s ubs equentappl i cat i on r equi r ement s of art i cl e 11. 071, Sect i on 5, can r es ul ti n an i s s ue becomi ng “new ” as t o a part i cul arappl i canteven i f i ti s not

“ n e w ” in a g e n e ra l se n se . S o m e c o u rt-m a d e ru les c a n a f f e c t th e c o g n iza b ili tyo f

a c laim in 19 an i ni t i al s t at e hab ea s pr ocee di ng, and one s uch rul e i s i m pl i cat ed her e: H ood w oul d have been ba rred from rai si ng his P enry c laim in h is f irst h a b e a s a p p lica tio n b e c a u se a ru le pr ocedur al l y barr i ng t hat cl ai m pr event s t he re l i t i gat i on of cl ai m s on habea s t hatw er e r ai s ed and r ej ect ed on di r ect ap p ea l. I n s uch a c as e, di r ectappea l , and ul t i m at el ya pet i t i on for 20

w r it o f cer t i or ar i fr om ourdeci s i on i n t hatdi r ectappea l , w oul d be an a vai l abl e ave nue for the adj udi cat i on of the claim
. W i t h t he adve ntof P en ry II, ho w ever, hab eas corpus al so becam e an av enu e for l i t i gati ng H oo d’s P enr y cl ai m beca us e a c hange i n t he law i s an
ex ce p ti o n to the p roc ed u ral ba r. 21 Fort hatr eas on, t he pl ur al i t yi s j us tpl ai n w r ong i n s ay i ng thatouropi ni on on or i gi nalH O O D D I S S E N T —8

5 5 0 U
. S
. 2 3 3 (20 0 7 ). 22 See Pl ur al i t yop. at18. 23 See H ood , 211 S. W
. 3d at776. 24 See 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 (d )( 1 ). 25 See H ood , 211 S. W
. 3d at777. 26 2 3 3 S
. W
. 3 d 3 1 9 , 3 2 2 -23 (T ex . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ). 27 s ubm i s s i on t ook a p os i t i on i ncons i s t entw i t h the Supr eme C our t ’ s l at erdeci s i on i n A b d u lKabi rv. Q uar t er m an in su g g e stin g th a t “ P en ry II a n n o u n c e d n e w la w .” W e e x p re ss ly 2 2 23 d ec li n ed to d ec ide w h ethe r P en ry II a n n o u n c e d “ n e w ” law “ in th e a b stra c t” b u t h e ld th a t it
w a s “ n e w ” a s to th e a p p lica n t b e c a u se a n u lli f ica tio n c laim h a d b e e n re so lv e d a g a in st h im i n a p r i o r p r o c e e d i n g . So e v e n i f our hol di ngs befor e P en ry II w e re “ u n re a so n a b le 24 appl i cat i ons of cl ear l yes t abl i s hed l aw , ” i t w as s t i l l t rue thata P enry cl ai m coul d nothave 25 been “r eas onabl y form ul at ed” by H ood w hi l e i t r emai ned non- cogni zabl e. E ven i f P en ry II d id n o t e sta b lish “ n e w ” law in a g e n e ra l s e n se , it w a s a n e w leg a l au th o rityf o r c o g n iza b ili ty purpos es and w as al s o a new “Supr eme C our t deci s i on” fr om w hi ch H ood’ s cl ai m coul d have been “ r eas onabl yform ul at ed. ” H ad H ood r ai s ed hi s cl ai m i n the fi r s tappl i cat i on fi l ed af t er P en ry II w a s h a n d e d d o w n , th e n h e w o u ld h a v e sa tisf ied A rticle 1 1 .0 7 1 , S e c tio n 5 . T h is ru le of s how i ng unavai l abi l i t ybyexhaus t i on, art i cul at ed on or i gi nal s ubm i s s i on, i s nota hol l ow 26

one: I n E x par t e M

ar t i nez , for exampl e, w e fol l ow ed t hi s rul e, found thatt he cl ai m s i n t hat
cas e w er e notbarr ed bySect i on 5, and gr ant ed r el i ef. 27H O O D D I S S E N T —9

See H ughes v. Q uar t er m an , 530 F. 3d 336, 3 4 1 -4 2 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ), cer t
. deni ed , 129 28 S . C t. 23 7 8 (2 0 0 9 ); see al so Kunkl e v. Texas , 54 3 U. S. 1 0 3 9 , 1 0 3 9 -1 0 4 0 (2 0 0 4 ) ( S te v e n s , J ., c o n c u rrin g ); Moor e v. Texas , 5 3 5 U
. S
. 1 0 4 4 (20 0 2 ) (Sc ali a, J. , d issen ti n g ).

See Pl ur al i t yop. at14 n. 41, 20. 29 See H ood , 211 S. W
. 3d at780, 780 n . 56 ( di s t i ngui s hi ng E x par t e Robert

s on , N o. 30 A P- 74, 720 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. M ar . 16, 2005) ( not des i gnat ed for publ i cat i on) and E x p a rte D a v is , N o . W R -40 , 3 3 9 -06 (Tex. C r i m . A pp. M ar. 29 , 2 0 0 6 ) (no t des ign ated fo r pu b li ca ti o n )).

See Ex par t e Bunt i on , N o. A P -76 , 2 3 6 (Tex. C r i m . A pp. Sept
. 30, 2009) ( not 31 desi gn at ed for pu bli cat i on ) (pr i or app l i cat i on fi l ed i n 1 9 9 6 ); Ex part e Rachal , No
. W R60, 394- 02 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. Sept
. 23, 2009) ( notdesi g nat ed forpubl i cat i on) ( pr i or a p p lica tio n f

iled in 1 9 9 7 ); E

x par t e Jone s , No
. AP- 7 5 , 8 9 6 , 2 0 0 9 W L 1 6 3 6 5 1 1 ( Te x . Cr i m. If H oo d fac es a “con un drum , ” i ti s b ecause, un l i ke otherhab eas app l i cants , he ch ose t o fi l e a pr o- s e habe as appl i cat i on w i t houtr ai s i ng an ava i l abl e P enr y c laim . T h is is e x a c tly the ki nd of behavi or t hatt he Legi s l atur e s peci fi cal l ys oughtt o pr ohi bi tbyenac t i ng Sect i on 5( a)
. B utno “conundrum ” exi s t s for H ood beca us e he i s s i m pl ynotent i t l ed t o r el i ef i n any forum . T he pl ur al i t y ’ s cont ent i on t hathe i s ent i t l ed t o r el i ef e i t heri n t hi s C our torfede r al
cour ti s w r ong beca us e a di s m i s s al under A r t i cl e 11. 071, Sect i on 5 w oul d be an ade quat e and in d e p e n d e n t sta te g ro u n d th a t w o u ld b a r re lief in f e d e ra l co u rt. 28 Fi nal ly , t he pl ur al i tyr el i es upon s ever al pr i or , unpubl i s hed dec i s i ons fort he p ro p o sitio n th a t o th e r lit ig a n ts h a v e re c e iv e d re lief u n d e r sim ilar c irc u m sta n c e s, a n d it
co n clud es th at w e sh o u ld tr e a t H o o d li k e tho se li ti g an ts. B u t th o se c ase s are 29 d ist i ngui s habl e. T he habe as appl i cant s i n D a v is and R ober t s on di d r ai s e a P enry cl ai m in th e ir f irst p o st- P en ry II

appl i cat i ons . T he s ame i s t rue i n t he more r ece ntcas es ci t ed byt he

30 pl ur al i tyt oday
. I n s om e, butnotal l of th e ca s es , the appl i cantal s o r ai s ed the cl ai m on 31H O O D D I SSE N T

— 10

A pp. J une 10 2009) ( notdes i gnat ed forpubl i cat i on) ( w hi l e nots et t i ng for t h t he pr ocedur al hi s t oryaboutpr i orhabea s appl i cat i ons , i nt ernal cour tr ecor ds s ho w that b o t h pr i or ap p li ca ti o n s w ere fil ed in 1 9 9 7 ).

See H ood , 211 S. W
. 3d at780 ( out l i ni ng R ober t s on ’ s pr ocedur al hi s t oryand 32 i ndi ca ti n g tha tR ober t s on r ai s ed hi s cl ai m on di r ectand appe al and hi s i ni t i al habea s a p p lica tio n ); E

x par t e Bunt i on , N o. W R
- 22, 548- 02 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. N ov. 5, 2003) ( not des i gnat ed forpubl i cat i on) ( i nt ernal cour tr ecor ds i ndi cat e thatB unt i on r ai s ed hi s cl ai m on d ire c t ap p e a l an d in h is in iti a l h a b e a s a p p lica tio n ); E x par t e Jone s , N o. 2009 W L 1636511 at*3 ( s um m ar i zi ng St at e’ s al l egat i ons and not i ng t hat J ones di d notr ai s e hi s cl ai m on di r ect a p p e a l o r in h is in iti a l ap p lica tio n ); R a c h a l v. S ta te , 917 S. W
. 2d 799 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. 1996) (c laim n o t r a ise d o n d ire c t ap p e a l); E x par t e Rachal , W R -60 , 3 9 4 -01 (T ex . C ri m . A p p . M ar. 2 3 , 2 0 0 5 ) (n o t d e sig n a ted f o r pu b lica tio n ) (cla im n o t ra ise d in in iti a l h a b e a s a p p lica tio n ); Ex p a rte D a v is , N o. A P- 76, 263, 2009 W L 3839065 at *4 n. 26 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. N ov. 18, 2009) (K ell er, P.J. d issen ti n g ) (no t des ign ated fo r pu b li ca ti o n ) (r ef erring to tri al co u rt ’s find ing s). di r ectappea l and i n an i ni t i al habea s appl i cat i on. A l t hough ouropi ni on on or i gi nal 32

su b m issi o n d id n o t d ec ide w h ethe r P en ry II m a d e n u lli f

ica tio n c laim s n e w lya v a ilab le in g en era l un d er a rt icl e 1 1
. 0 7 1 , S ec ti o n 5 , so m e of o u r sub seq u en t un p u b li sh ed d ec isi o n s are
cons i s t entw i t h doi ng s o. Such a vi ew i s ent i r el yunder s t andabl e bec aus e P en ry II w as t he fi r s t t i m e the Supr eme Court s ai d t hat a nul l i fi cat i on i ns t ruct i on w as i ns uffi ci en t t o s at i s fy P enr y I ’ s di ct at es . B ut unt i l t oday , al l of ourcas es w er e al s o cons i s t entw i t h t he vi ew t hat
a n a p p lica n t co u ld n o t ch a llen g e a n u lli f ica tio n in stru c tio n if

th e a p p lica n t f

a iled to d o so in a p rev iou s ap p li ca ti o n fil ed af ter P en ry II
. B e c a u s e th e C o u rt ’s d e c is io n is c o n tr a ry to o u r s ta te h a b e a s s ta tu te , I d is s e n t.

D A T E D E L I V E R E D : February24, 2010 PU BL I SH