Opinion ID: 18484
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Bledsue guilty on the “28 grams or more”

Text: In July 1989, Bledsue was indicted for intentionally and knowingly possessing am- count,1 then sentenced him to life without written order. imprisonment under the Texas habitual offender statute after finding his two prior Bledsue then filed a third state habeas convictions to be “true” for purposes of petition, in which he specifically argued that sentencing.2 (1) the trial court had improperly allowed the jury to include adulterants and dilutants in Bledsue's appeal to an intermediate Texas determining the amount of total amphetamine court was dismissed as untimely. In response, when the indictment charged only the he filed his first petition for habeas corpus possession of pure3 amphetamine, and (2) relief with the Texas Court of Criminal (reiterating the argument from his second Appeals, which granted it, allowing him to petition) the state had failed to prove his proceed on direct appeal. Ultimately, his possession of at least twenty-eight grams of conviction was affirmed by the intermediate amphetamine, including adulterants and court in an unpublished opinion. He did not dilutants, with the intent to increase the petition the Court of Criminal Appeals for amount of amphetamine. The trial court again discretionary review. found ample evidence to support the conviction, but instead of considering the Bledsue did, however, file two additional merits on appeal, the Court of Criminal petitions for habeas relief in Texas courts. In Appeals denied the petition as successive his second petition, his principal argument was under TEX. CRIM. P. CODE ANN. ART. 11.07 § that the state had failed to prove his possession 4 (West Supp. 1998).4 of at least 28 grams of amphetamine, including adulterants and dilutants, with the intent to Bledsue then sought habeas relief in federal increase the amount of amphetamine. The trial court under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, advancing the court, in a memorandum opinion, found ample same two points he had raised in his third state evidence to justify the conviction, and the habeas petition. The magistrate judge found Court of Criminal Appeals denied the petition that Bledsue’s first assignment of error was procedurally barred in federal court because it was not raised until his third state habeas 1 petition, which was dismissed by the Court of The jury was instructed on the lesser included Criminal Appeals as successive.5 But finding offense of possession of amphetamine in a quantity Bledsue’s second assignment of error less than 28 grams. Although it is inconsequential procedurally properSSas it had also been raised to the outcome, we find it perplexing that the jury in his second state habeas petition, which was instruction on the “28 grams or more” count allowed the jury to include adulterants and denied on the meritsSSthe magistrate judge dilutants, but the instruction on the “less than 28 grams” count did not. 3 The indictment referred to “amphetamine” 2 without the adjective “pure,” but also without TEX. PENAL CODE § 12.42 (West 1994). Bledsue’s sentence was assessed under reference to “adulterants and dilutants.” subsection (d), which states, 4 Section 4 of Article 11.04 provides that a If it be shown on the trial of a felony offense court may not consider the merits of a subsequent that the defendant has pr eviously been application for habeas relief after final disposition finally convicted of two felony offenses, and of an initial application challenging the same the second previous felony conviction is for conviction. an offense that occurred subsequent to the 5 first previous conviction having become A federal court is barred from reviewing a final, on conviction he shall be punished by habeas application that a state court has expressly imprisonment for life, or for any term of not dismissed on an independent and adequate state law more than 99 years or less than 25 years. ground. See Nobles v. Johnson, 127 F.3d 409, 420 (5th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 1845 TEX. PENAL CODE § 12.42(d). (1998). 2 treated the second claim as an overall those factual determinations are clearly challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. erroneous.” Id. at 169. Additionally, Bledsue’s federal habeas claim is governed by Ultimately, the magistrate judge the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death recommended granting the writ, finding the Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), under which federal evidence constitutionally insufficient in that the courts can grant habeas relief only if the state state was bound by its indictment, which court’s adjudication on the merits “resulted in charged the possession of at least 28 grams of a decision that was contrary to, or involved an amphetamine but made no mention of unreasonable application of, clearly established adulterants or dilutants. Because the federal law, as determined by the Supreme undisputed evidence indicated that Bledsue Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § possessed, at most, 17 grams of pure 2254(d)(1) (1996).6