Court Opinion

ID: 9478767
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 06:57:30.56463+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:46:36.482073
License: Public Domain

JOHNSON, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
With the reservations expressed below, I concur in the result only of the opinion by the majority.
In concurring in the result only of the majority, I join in the conclusion reached by Judge Rubin in his concurrence, that King is not prcedurally barred from raising the Franklin/Penry/Hitchcock issues by the contemporaneous objection rule invoked by the State. See Williams v. Lynaugh, 837 F.2d 1294 (5th Cir.1988). Further, I join in Judge Rubin’s plea to the Supreme Court to grant a stay of King’s execution pending the Supreme Court’s disposition of the Pen-ry case. In this regard, it is noted that in almost every instance wherein an application for a stay has been filed with the Supreme Court in a Texas capital case since the Supreme Court’s decision to review the validity of the Texas capital sentencing scheme in Franklin and Penry, the Supreme Court has granted a stay of execution. See Williams v. Lynaugh, 837 F.2d 1294, 1295-96 (5th Cir.1988), stay granted, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 1000, 98 L.Ed.2d 967 (1988); Selvage v. Lynaugh, 842 F.2d 89 (5th Cir.1988), stay granted, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 1283, 99 L.Ed.2d 494 (1988); Bell v. Lynaugh, 858 F.2d 978 (5th Cir.1988), stay granted, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 254, 102 L.Ed.2d 243 (1988); Bridge v. Lynaugh, 856 F.2d 712 (5th Cir.1988), stay granted, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 20, 101 L.Ed.2d 972 (1988); Hawkins v. Lynaugh, 862 F.2d 487 (5th Cir.1988), stay granted, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 569, 102 L.Ed.2d 593 (1988).
It may be that, in Penry, the Supreme Court upholds the validity of the Texas capital scheme as it relates to the jury’s consideration of mitigating evidence; however, it would be the height of inconsistency to grant relief in the form of a stay of execution in almost all Texas capital cases until Penry is resolved, but to deny such relief to other Texas capital defendants who raise a Penry claim. As stated by Justice Brennan in his dissent from the Supreme Court’s denial of a stay of execution in Streetman v. Lynaugh, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 588, 98 L.Ed.2d 634 (1988), “[Djeath is different. Due to the unique nature of the penalty, the relief that we could give any other type of habeas corpus petitioner is unavailable to Streetman. His case will be moot long before we can resolve Franklin — he will be dead.” 108 S.Ct. at 590. In the instant appeal, unless stayed, King’s case will also be moot by the time the Penry decision is made — he will also be dead. Such a result is the essence of arbitrary and capricious conduct by government — conduct in violation of the eighth amendment to the Constitution.