Opinion ID: 2814398
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Convictions and Post-Conviction Proceedings

Text: Johnson was subsequently indicted, convicted, and sentenced to death for the robbery, kidnapping, and murder of Maria Aparece. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. Johnson v. State, No. 75, 749 (Tex. Crim. App. Jan. 27, 2010) (unpublished), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 3515 (2010). While his appeal was still pending, Johnson also filed a state application for writ of habeas corpus, which the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals subsequently denied. Ex parte Johnson, No. 73, 600-01 (Tex. Crim. App. June 30, 2010). A year later, Johnson filed a federal petition for habeas corpus relief in the district court below raising a total of eleven points of error, including a claim for relief under Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 484–85 (1981) (intimating the standards for invoking and waiving the right to have counsel present during custodial interrogation). Following the Director’s answer, the district court denied relief on all but Johnson’s Edwards allegation, on which the court ordered the parties to provide additional briefing. 1 After taking into consideration the supplemental briefing of both parties, the district court denied relief on Johnson’s Edwards claim, concluding that Johnson had not shown that the state courts were unreasonable in finding that the admission of his second police statement did not violate his constitutional rights. However, the court determined that Johnson’s arguments on the Edwards 1 Specifically, the Court ordered briefing on: (1) whether Johnson made an unambiguous invocation of the right to counsel during his first statement; (2) whether the police tried to clarify his request; (3) whether Johnson reinitiated communication with police; and (4) whether any error in the admission of the second statement harmed the defense. 8 Case: 14-70024 Document: 00513104009 Page: 9 Date Filed: 07/02/2015 No. 14-70024 claim deserve “encouragement to proceed further,” and certified the claim for appeal, citing to Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). On December 1, 2014, Johnson filed his merits brief on the Edwards/Fifth Amendment claim and separately requested a certificate of appealability (COA) on four other issues raised in his federal habeas petition. In particular, Johnson seeks a certificate of appealability on the following issues: 1) whether his motion to abate in order to amend his petition was erroneously denied; 2) whether the Constitution should prohibit the execution of a severely mentally ill inmate; 3) whether Johnson was mentally competent to waive his right to counsel and to remain silent during the custodial interview with the police; and 4) whether a change in Texas decisional law should require retrial of Johnson’s guilt.