Opinion ID: 52320
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sufficiency of the Indictment Claim

Text: The first issue raised by Petitioner is whether the indictment in this case is constitutionally defective. This court has held that [t]he sufficiency of a state indictment is not a matter of federal habeas relief unless it can be shown that the state indictment is so defective that it deprives the state court of jurisdiction. McKay v. Collins, 12 F.3d 66, 68 (5th Cir.1994) (citation omitted); see also Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 229 (5th Cir.1993); Alexander v. McCotter, 775 F.2d 595, 598 (5th Cir.1985). That question is foreclosed to federal habeas review, however, if the sufficiency of the [indictment] was squarely presented to the highest court of the state on appeal, and that court held that the trial court had jurisdiction over the case. Millard v. Lynaugh, 810 F.2d 1403, 1407 (5th Cir.1987) (quoting Liner v. Phelps, 731 F.2d 1201, 1203 (5th Cir.1984)). Here, the sufficiency of the indictment was squarely presented to the TCCA, which adopted the state habeas court's express findings that the indictment was not fundamentally defective and that even if the indictment failed to allege a necessary element, it was still an indictment under state law. [1] Because the sufficiency of the indictment was squarely presented to the highest state court and that court held that the trial court had jurisdiction over this case, this claim is foreclosed to federal habeas review. Millard, 810 F.2d at 1407 (quoting Liner, 731 F.2d at 1203). Even if we were to reach this issue on the merits, we would find it beyond debate that Petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Texas law defines murder as intentionally or knowingly caus[ing] the death of an individual. Tex. Penal Code § 19.02(b)(1). A person commits capital murder if he or she murders more than one person . . . during different criminal transactions but the murders are committed pursuant to the same scheme or course of conduct. Tex. Penal Code § 19.03(a)(7)(B). The indictment charges Petitioner with unlawfully, intentionally and knowingly caus[ing] the death of more than one person, during different criminal transactions, pursuant to the same scheme and course of conduct. It then lists the six victims and the manner, if known, in which they were killed. We simply fail to see how the indictment is insufficient in charging Petitioner with capital murder. See McKay, 12 F.3d at 69 (An indictment should be found sufficient unless no reasonable construction of the indictment would charge the offense for which the defendant has been convicted.) (citing United States v. Salinas, 956 F.2d 80, 82 (5th Cir.1992)). Accordingly, we conclude that it is beyond debate that Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right with respect to his sufficiency of the indictment claim.