Opinion ID: 27064
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: question of law and a miscarriage of justice

Text: Patrick challenges the jury charge used dur- would result from our failure to consider it.” ing the sentencing portion of his trial. He Id. bases this challenge on Robertson v. Cockrell, 279 F.3d 1062 (5th Cir. 2002). There, we The timing of Patrick’s Robertson granted habeas relief to a petitioner who had argument precludes any suggestion of a received a jury instruction almost identical to miscarriage of justice. The Supreme Court that in Patrick’s case. Our panel in turn relied granted certiorari in Penry II on November 27, 2000, and issued its opinion on June 4, 2001. The grant of certiorari was during the 6 pendency of Patrick’s petition before the See also Nethery v. Collins, 993 F.2d 1154, district court; the opinion was handed down 1162 (5th Cir. 1993) (same); Milton v. Procunier, well before Patrick filed his original brief with 744 F.2d 1091, 1095-96 (5th Cir. 1984) (same). this court. His failure to raise an argument 7 In relevant part, this section reads, based on Penry II belies any claim he may have to an exception to our normal appellate On conclusion of the presentation of the waiver rule. evidence, the court shall submit the following three issues to the jury: There is an additional reason Patrick is not entitled to raise a Penry II argument before (1) whether the conduct of the this panel. A Penry claim must be based on defendant that caused the death of mitigating evidence actually presented, not evithe deceased was committed dence that merely could have been presented. deliberately and with the Boyd v. Johnson, 167 F.3d 907, 912 (5th Cir. reasonable expectation that the 1999). Patrick has not raised sufficient death of the deceased or another would result. mitigating evidence to warrant relief under Penry II and Robertson. Indeed, his main TEX. CODE CRIM. P ROC. ANN. art. 37.071(b)(1) contention in support of his ineffective (Vernon 1990). This section has been amended assistance of counsel claim was his counsel’s several times since Patrick’s sentencing. See, e.g., 1991 Tex. Sess. Law Serv. ch. 838; 1999 Tex. 8 Sess. Law Serv. ch. 140. Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 (1989). 6 failure to offer mitigating evidence. The application for a COA is DENIED. 7