Opinion ID: 152367
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Penry Ruling

Text: The State concedes that the jury charge in question violates Penry I. However, the State argues that Penry I violations are subject to a harmless error analysis “like all jury charge error.” The State further argues that, given the ample evidence of Rivers’s propensity for violence and the horrific facts of this case, any error in charging the jury on its consideration of mitigating evidence is harmless and should not result in a new sentencing trial. As the State concedes, we have previously decided this question. Nelson v. Quarterman, 472 F.3d 287, 314 (5th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (“[W]e reject the State’s argument that any Penry error in this case is subject to harmless-error analysis . . . .”). This panel is bound by this en banc determination of our court. See United States v. Eastland, 989 F.2d 760, 768 n.16 (5th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we reject the State’s invitation to contravene binding precedent by engaging in a harmless error review of the Penry I error. The district court correctly granted habeas relief as to Rivers’s sentence.