See Ex parte Alba , No. AP-75,510, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tex . Crim. App. J une 9, 2008) 1 (Cochra n, J ., concur

ring ). 

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

OF TE XAS N O . A P - 75, 930 & A P - 75, 931
EX PA R TE H EL I BE R TO C H I , A ppl i c ant
ON AP P LI CAT I ON F OR A W RI T OF HABE AS CORP US AND P ET I TI ON F OR

A W R I T O F P R O H I B I T I O N I N C A U SE N O . 0805594 I N T HE CR I M I NAL DI S TR I CT COURT NUM BE R 3

OF TARRA NT CO UNTY C OC HRAN , J
. , fi l ed a c oncur r i ng opi ni on i n w hi ch W OMACK , J
. , j oi ned. O P I N I O N I agr ee t hat appl i canti s not enti tl ed to rel i ef on e i t her hi s appl i cat i on for a w r i t of h a b e a s c o rp u s o r h is p e tit io n f o r a w rit o f p ro h ib iti o n b e c a u se h e h a s n o t m a d e a p rim a f a c ie
s how i ng of a c ons t i t ut i onal vi ol at i on. I bel i eve t hat appl i cant ’ s w r i t appl i cat i on coul d be recharact eri zed b yt his C ou rtas an ori ginal w ri t un der t he T exas C on st i t uti on . R egardl ess, 1 f u rth e r f a c tu a l d e v e lo p m e n t b yth is a p p lica n t u n d e r th is p a rticu lar p lea d in g c o u ld n o t re su lt i n anyr el i ef be caus e he ha s not m ade a s uffi ci ent s how i ng of anycons t i t ut i onal vi ol at i on.Chi Concurringopinion Page 2

128 S.Ct . 1520, 1529 (2008). 2 190 S.W .3d 677 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). 3 Supplemental Brief of the Texas Depar tment of Criminal J ustice, Corre ctional 4 Institut ions Depar

tment, filed May

9, 2008. Texas Depar

tment of Criminal J ustice Execution Procedure Manual, Rev. April 2005, 5 pp. 8-9 (Exhibit1 to Petiti on for Writ of Prohibition). Som e of the data in the TD CJ char t comes from applica

nt’s Ex hibits 2 and 4, and some is impli ed fr om the TDCJ manual. TDCJ’s chart shows that both Texas and Kentucky use 3 grams of sodium thiopental; Texas uses 100 milli grams (mg ). of pa

ncuronium bromide while K entucky uses 50 mg ; Texas uses 140 milli equivalents (mEq) of potassium chloride, while K entucky uses 240 mEq. In Kentucky the p e r s o np r e p ar i n gth e s o d i umth i o p e nt a l i s th e W ar d e n , wh i l e i nT e x a s i ti s “ dr u gi n j e c t o r s . ” In Ke ntu c ky , th e me dic a lly

tr a ine d p e rs onne l ha

ve up to o ne ho ur

to i ns e rt the I .V . c athe te r l ine s, while in Texas there is no spec ific limitation on that time. In Kentucky , the IV lines areinserted, in prefe renc e orde r, in the ar m, hands, ankles/fe et, or ne ck; in Texas, they are inserted in the lef

t and right arms. In both Kentucky and Te x as a me dical doctor is present a

nd enter s the execution c h amb e r t o e x am i n e th e i nm at e , p r o n o un c e h i s d e ath , an d d e s i gn at e th e o f

f i c i a l t i m e o f

d e ath
. In Ke ntu c ky , th e IV t e am mu st h ave a min imum of

on e ye ar o f p ro fe ssi on a l e xpe ri e nc e a s a c e rt i f i e d m e d i c a l a s s i s t ant , p h l e b o t o m i s t , E M T , p ar am e d i c o r m i l i t ar y c o r p s m an . InT e x a s , anIV te am me mbe r m

us t bea “ me dic a lly

tr a ine d in div idu a l” wh o h a s “ c e rt if ic atio n s uf

fi c ie nt t o perf orm these pr ocedures.” K entucky conducts ten a

nnual pra ctice se ssions to ensure that the protocol will be followed, while Texas does not. But Ke ntucky has used its proce dure only once, while Texas has executed ove r 400 death-row inmates. In both Kentucky and Te x as, thereare primary and bac kup IV lines. In both states, personne l observe the proce dure to e nsure that ther e H e has p led fa cts, and off er ed evi dence of t hos e pl eade d fac t s , t hat br i ng hi m w i t hi n t he ambi t of t he maj or i t ydeci s i on i n B az e v. R ees , and our pr i or deci s i on i n E x par t e O ’

B r i en . 2 3 F u rth e rm o re , w e h a v e re c e iv e d a p o st- B aze s uppl ement al r es pons e fr om t he Texas D epar t m ent of C r i m i nal J us t i ce ( T D C J ) t hat gr aphi cal l ydemonst r at es t he s i m i l ar i t i es bet w een t he T exas l et hal
- i nj ect i on pr ot ocol and t hat of K ent ucky w hi ch w as uphel d by t he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our t i n B aze . T D C J’s c o m p a riso n is b a se d p rim a rilyu p o n d a ta in 4 th e T D C J E x e c u tio n P ro c e d u ra l M a n u a l w h ich w a s a ttac h e d to a p p lica n t’s P e tit io n f o r W rit of Pr ohi bi t i on. T hus , t he under l y i ng dat a t hat negat es appl i cant ’ s cl ai m of a c ons t i t ut i onal 5Chi Concurringopinion Page 3

is n o IV m a lf

un c tio n o r t iss ue inf

iltratio n. B oth

state s a lso pr ov ide fo r a

re dir e c tio n o f c he mic a ls to a ba c ku p IV s iteif

theinm ate do e s n ot l os e c on sc iou sn e ss w ith in 6 0 s e c on ds . F ina lly , in bo th states, saline is injected in the IV line betwe en the a dministration of c hemicals. Fur thermore , the applica

nt in a related ca se, Ex parte Sonnier , WR -57,256-02, f iled a reque st for a stay

of execution that we grante d on J une 3, 2008, that conta ins, as an exhibit, a copy of the most rec ent TDCJEx ecution Proce dure ma nual as it was amended, e ffe ctive May 30, 2008. In that protocol, TDCJ has modi fied a couple of its Tex as proc edure s to mirror those of Kentucky . Presumably

these c hang es we re ma de to eve n more c losely confor m to the protocol upheld by the Supreme Court de cision in Ba ze . For example, the new pr otocol states, “The drug team shall have at least one medically trained individual . . . [who] shall at least be c ertified or licensed a s a ce rtified medica l assistant, phlebotomist , emerg ency medical tec hnician, par amedic, or military

corpsman. E ach me dically trained individual shall have one year of prof essional e xpe ri e nc e be fo repa

rt ic ipatin ga s p art

of a dr ugte am, s ha ll r e ta in c ur

re nt l ic e ns ur e , a

nd sh a ll fulfill continuing e ducation re quirements commensur ate with licensur e.” T DCJ Ex ecution Procedur e IV(A) . It further require s, “Eac h new membe r of the dr ugteam shall re ceive training befor e par

ticipating in a

n execution without direct supervision. The tra ining sha ll consist of followingthe drugteam through at least two e x ecutions, re ceivingstep-by-step instruction from exis ting tea

m members. The new tea m member will then par

ticipate in at lea st two ex ecutions under the direc t supervision of exist ing te am member s. There afte r, the ne w team membe r may participate in executions without the dire ct supervision of e x isting team members.” Id . at IV(B ). The Huntsville Unit Warden shall annua lly revie w the tra ining a

nd curr ent licensureof ea ch team member to e nsure c ompliance with the r equire d qualifications and training
. Id . at IV(C). The re vised proce dure a lso states, “The dr ugteam shall prepare a bac k-up set of the no rm a l sa lin e sy

ri ng e s and

thele tha l in

je c tio n d ru g s in c a se un fo rs e e n e ve nts make the ir us e nece ssary .” Id . at V I (C ). Intr ave no us c athe te rs areto b e ins e rt e d in e a c h a rm ; if a su ita ble ve in cannot be found in an a

rm, a substitute suitable vein will be found in anothe r par t of the body
. Id . at V I I(C ). “ Th e me dic a lly tr a ine d in div idu a l sh a ll t ake a s mu c h ti me a s is ne e de d to pr op e rl y insert the IV lines.” Id . A normal saline f low is then started in the fir st line. Id . “The second line is started as a

prec aution and is used only if a potential proble m is identified with the primary line.” Id . The CI

Division Director or

designee, the Huntsville Unit W arde n or de signe e , a

nd theme dic a lly

tr a ine d in div idu a l ob se rv e theIV t o e ns ur e that th e fl owis uninterrupted. Id
. Th e ne w p ro c e durea lso dir e c ts, “ Th e CI Di vis ion Di re c tor or de signe e and

the Hunts vil le Unit Warden or de signe e shall obser ve the a ppear anceof the c ondemned individual during application of the Sodium P entothal. I f the c ondemned individual exhibit s no visible signs of beingawa

ke to the designated obse rver s, the CIDivision Director or designee sha ll instruct the drugteam to proc eed w ith the nextstep. I f the c ondemned individual does e x hibit vis ible signs of beingawa

ke, the CI Division Director or

designee sha ll instruct the dr ugteam to switch to the backup IV to administer another lethal dose of the Sodium P entothal, followed w ith a saline flush, befor e proc eedingto the next s tep.” Id . at VI I (J). v io latio n w a s s u p p lied b ya p p lica n t h im se lf. F u r th e rm o re , ap p lica n t, l ik e th e p e tit io n e r inChi Concurringopinion Page 4

Ba ze , 128 S.Ct . at 1532 (statingthat “the a lternative pr ocedur e [proposed by the inmate] 6 must be fea sible, rea dily

implemented, and in fa ct significantly reduc e a substantial risk of sever e pa in. I f a State re fu se s to a do pt s uc h a n a lte rn ativ e in t

he fa c e of the se do c ume nte d a dv anta g e s, without a leg itimate penolog ical justification for a dheringto its current method of e x ecution, the n a State ’s re fu sa l to c ha

ng e its me tho d c an b e vie we d a s ‘ c ru e l and unus ua l’ un de r t

he Ei ghth Amendment.”)
. Ba ze , 1 2 8 S
. C t . at1 5 3 1 (qu o t i n g Farmer v . Brennan , 511 U.S. 825, 842 (1994)). 7 B aze , fa ils to a rticu late a re a d il y i m p lem e n ted a n d f e a sib le a ltern a tiv e to th e T e x a s le th a li nj ect i on pr ot ocol s uch t hat t he fa i l ur e t o i m pl ement t hat n ew , signi fi cant l ys uper i or pr ocedur e mi ght cons t i t ut e cruel and unus ual puni s hm ent . Fi nal l y , appl i cantdi s cus s es t he 6 “bot ched” exec ut i on of A ngel D i az i n Fl or i da as s om e evi dence t hat t he s ame coul d happen t o hi m . B ut T exas i s not Fl or i da, and appl i canthas fai l ed t o s how t hat anyl et hal
- i nj ect i on
exec ut i on i n T exas has pr es ent ed t he s ame pr obl ems as t hat i n t he D i az c as e. A t anyr at e, “an iso late d m ish a p a lo n e d o e s n o t g iv e r is e to a n E ig h th A m e n d m e n t v io latio n , p re c ise ly beca us e s uch an e vent , w hi l e r egr et t abl e, does not s ugges t cr uel t y , or t hat t he pr ocedur e at issue g ives ri se to a ‘su b stan ti al ri sk o f se ri o u s h arm . ’” 7 T her efor e, I agr ee t hat w e must di s m i s s t he pre sen t appl i cat i on for a w r i t of habe as
c o rp u s a n d th e p e tit io n f o r w ri t o f

p ro h ib iti o n b e c a u se n e ith e r o n e se ts o u t a p rim a f a c ie
s h o w in g o f

a c o n s titu tio n a l v io la tio n .

Fi l ed: J une 9, 2008 P ub l i sh