Court Opinion

ID: 4059675
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-09-29 19:38:01.213168+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:31:55.531675
License: Public Domain

PD-1067-15
                                                               COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
                                                                               AUSTIN, TEXAS
                                                             Transmitted 10/21/2015 9:08:43 PM
  October 22, 2015                                             Accepted 10/22/2015 8:11:43 AM
                                                                                ABEL ACOSTA
                                NO. PD-1067-15                                          CLERK

                               IN THE
                 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

              EX PARTE JAMES RICHARD “RICK” PERRY,
                            Appellant
      ________________________________________________________

              On Appeal from the 390th Judicial District Court,
            Travis County, Texas, Cause No. D-1-DC-14-100139
      ________________________________________________________

         APPELLANT’S BRIEF ON THE MERITS ADDRESSING
            HIS PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
      ________________________________________________________

THE BUZBEE LAW FIRM                          BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
Anthony G. Buzbee                            Thomas R. Phillips
State Bar No. 24001820                       State Bar No. 00000102
JPMorgan Chase Tower                         98 San Jacinto Blvd., Suite 1500
600 Travis Street, Suite 7300                Austin, Texas 78701-4078
Houston, Texas 77002                         tom.phillips@bakerbotts.com
Tbuzbee@txattorneys.com                      Telephone: 512-322-2565
Telephone: 713-223-5393                      Facsimile: 512-322-8363
Facsimile: 713-223-5909

BOTSFORD & ROARK
David L. Botsford
State Bar No. 02687950
1307 West Ave.
Austin, Texas 78701
dbotsford@aol.com
Telephone: 512-479-8030
Facsimile: 512-479-8040

   ORAL ARGUMENT PREVIOUSLY SCHEDULED BY THE COURT
                     Identity of Judge, Parties, and Counsel
      The following is a complete list of the names and addresses of all parties and
counsel in this case.

      Trial Judge: Honorable Bert Richardson, sitting by appointment;
      Court of Criminal Appeals, Supreme Court Building, 201 West 14th
      Street, Austin, Texas, 78701.

      Appellant: Former Governor James Richard “Rick” Perry, c/o
      Anthony G. Buzbee, JPMorgan Chase Tower, 600 Travis Street, Suite
      7300, Houston, Texas, 77002

      Appellant’s Counsel: Anthony G. Buzbee, JPMorgan Chase Tower,
      600 Travis Street, Suite 7300, Houston, Texas 77002; Thomas R.
      Phillips, 98 San Jacinto Blvd., Suite 1500, Austin, Texas 78701-4078;
      and David L. Botsford, 1307 West Avenue, Austin, Texas, 78701
      (Lead Counsel on Appeal).

      State of Texas: Attorney Pro Tem Michael McCrum, 700 N. Saint
      Mary’s Street, Suite 1900, San Antonio, Texas 78205; Assistant
      Attorney Pro Tem David Gonzalez, 206 East 9th Street, Suite 1511,
      Austin, Texas, 78701.

                                         i
                                                Table of Contents
Identity of Judge, Parties, and Counsel...................................................................... i 

Index of Authorities ................................................................................................. iv 

Statement of the Case.................................................................................................1 

Grounds for Review ...................................................................................................3 

Statement of the Facts ................................................................................................4 

Summary of the Argument.........................................................................................7 

Argument..................................................................................................................10 

         I.        Governor Perry’s Claims Are Properly Cognizable ...........................10 

                   A.       The Standard of Review is De Novo. ...................................... 10 

                   B.       The court of appeals misunderstood this Court’s
                            approach to the cognizability of pretrial habeas claims........... 11 

                            1.        This Court’s approach to cognizability is
                                      functional. .......................................................................11 

                            2.        The court of appeals adopted an erroneous “label-
                                      driven” approach to deciding cognizability....................15 

                   C.       Under an appropriate analysis, all of Governor Perry’s
                            claims are cognizable. .............................................................. 18 

                            1.        All of Governor Perry’s challenges are the
                                      functional equivalent of a facial attack on Section
                                      39.02(a)(2). .....................................................................18 

                            2.        The key reasons to permit pretrial habeas review
                                      are all present here. .........................................................20 

                                      a.       Governor Perry’s challenges can be resolved
                                               on the face of the indictment. ...............................20 

                                                             ii
                                     b.        Governor Perry’s challenges to the State’s
                                               right to try him at all can only be vindicated
                                               in pretrial proceedings. .........................................21 

                                     c.        Important policy considerations compel a
                                               pretrial resolution of Governor Perry’s
                                               constitutional challenges to the indictment. .........22 

                            3.       Habeas review is cognizable under the state of the
                                     record as recognized by the court of appeals .................23 

                  D.        If necessary, this Court should extend an exception to the
                            cognizability doctrine............................................................... 29 

         II.      The State’s prosecution of Governor Perry is unconstitutional ..........30 

                  A.        This prosecution violates the constitutional separation of
                            powers ...................................................................................... 31 

                  B.        Count I violates the Texas Speech or Debate Clause and
                            the common-law doctrine of legislative immunity .................. 37 

                  C.        The abuse of official capacity statute is unconstitutionally
                            vague as applied to the veto alleged on the face of the
                            indictment................................................................................. 45 

Prayer for Relief .......................................................................................................48 

Certificate of Compliance ........................................................................................49 

Certificate of Service ...............................................................................................49 

TAB 1, Nine Claims Challenging Count I ...............................................................50 

                                                            iii
                                            Index of Authorities

                                                                                                           Page(s)

CASES
Abney v. United States,
  431 U.S. 651 (1977) ......................................................................................44, 45

Armadillo Bail Bonds v. State,
  802 S.W.2d 237 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) ........................................................... 32

Baker v. Carr,
  369 U.S. 186 (1962) ............................................................................................ 35

Baraka v. McGreevey,
  481 F.3d 187 (3d Cir. 2007) ............................................................................... 42

Barnes v. Secretary of Admin.,
  586 N.E.2d 958 (Mass. 1992) ............................................................................. 34

Bogan v. Scott-Harris,
  523 U.S. 44 (1998) ............................................................................34, 40, 42, 43

Bowles v. Clipp,
  920 S.W.2d 752 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1996, writ denied) ................................... 38

Camacho v. Samaniego,
  954 S.W.2d 811 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1997, pet. denied) .................................. 40

Canfield v. Gresham,
  17 S.W. 390 (Tex. 1891)...............................................................................38, 39

Coffin v. Coffin,
  4 Mass. 1 (1808) ................................................................................................. 38

Coleman v. Miller,
  307 U.S. 433 (1939) ............................................................................................ 34

Cook v. State,
  902 S.W.2d 471 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) ........................................................... 32

Cuellar v. State,
  70 S.W.3d 815 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) ............................................................. 47

                                                          iv
D’Amato v. Superior Court,
  167 Cal. App. 4th 861 (2008) ............................................................................. 42

Doe v. McMillan,
  412 U.S. 306 (1973) ................................................................................38, 39, 41

Dombrowksi v. Eastland,
  387 U.S. 82 (1967) ..................................................................................21, 22, 45

Ex parte Boetscher,
   812 S.W.2d 600 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) .........................................14, 21, 23, 24

Ex parte Brown,
   158 S.W.3d 449 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) ........................................................... 10

Ex Parte Doster,
   303 S.W.3d 720 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) .....................................................12, 14

Ex parte Elliott,
   973 S.W.2d 737 (Tex. App—Austin 1998, pet. ref’d) .................................13, 37

Ex Parte Ellis,
   309 S.W.3d 71 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) .................................................12, 18, 19

Ex parte Ferdin,
   183 S.W.2d 466 (Tex. Crim. App. 1944) ........................................................... 35

Ex parte Giles,
   502 S.W.2d 774 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974) ........................................................... 32

Ex parte Gill,
   413 S.W.3d 425 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) .....................................................13, 32

Ex parte Halsted,
   182 S.W.2d 479 (Tex. Crim. App. 1944) ........................................................... 32

Ex parte Humphrey,
   244 S.W. 822 (Tex. Crim. App. 1922) .........................................................13, 37

Ex parte Leslie,
   223 S.W.2d 227 (Tex. Crim. App. 1920) .....................................................13, 37

                                                       v
Ex parte Lo,
   424 S.W.3d 10 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) .......................................................11, 32

Ex parte Mattox,
   683 S.W.2d 93 (Tex. App.—Austin 1984, pet. ref’d) ..................................24, 25

Ex Parte McCullough,
   966 S.W.2d 529 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) ........................................................... 14

Ex parte Meza,
   185 S.W.2d 444 (Tex. Crim. App. 1945) ........................................................... 36

Ex parte Pitt,
   206 S.W.2d 596 (Tex. Crim. App. 1947) ........................................................... 35

Ex parte Rathmell,
   717 S.W.2d 33 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) ............................................................. 13

Ex parte Robinson,
   641 S.W.2d 552 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982) ...............................................13, 14, 45

Ex parte Smith,
   178 S.W.3d 797 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) .........................................12, 13, 14, 20

Ex Parte Watkins,
   73 S.W.3d 264 (Tex. Crim App. 2002) .............................................................. 14

Ex parte Weise,
   55 S.W.3d 617 (Tex. 2001)..........................................................................passim

Fulmore v. Lane,
   140 S.W. 405 (Tex. 1911)................................................................................... 34

Goldwater v. Carter,
  444 U.S. 996 (1979) ............................................................................................ 34

Gravel v. United States,
  408 U.S. 606 (1972) ......................................................................................38, 39

Helstoski v. Meanor,
  442 U.S. 500 (1979) ......................................................................................21, 44

                                                         vi
Henderson v. State,
  962 S.W.2d 544 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) ........................................................... 11

Hernandez v. City of Lafayette,
  643 F.2d 1188 (5th Cir. 1981) ............................................................................ 40

Homan v. Branstad,
  812 N.W.2d 623 (Iowa 2012) ............................................................................. 34

In re Masonite Corp.,
    997 S.W.2d 194 (Tex. 1999) .............................................................................. 23

In re Perry,
    60 S.W.3d 857 (Tex. 2001).........................................................22, 39, 40, 42, 43

Irons v. R.I. Ethics Comm’n,
   973 A.2d 1124 (R.I. 2009) .................................................................................. 42

Jessen Assocs., Inc. v. Bullock,
   531 S.W.2d 593 (Tex. 1976) ........................................................................34, 40

Karenev v. State,
  281 S.W.3d 428 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (Cochran, J., concurring,
  joined by Price, Womack, and Johnson, JJ.) ...................................................... 20

Kilbourn v. Thompson,
   103 U.S. 168 (1880) ......................................................................................38, 39

Langever v. Miller,
  76 S.W.2d 1025 (Tex. 1934) .............................................................................. 31

Luther v. Borden,
   48 U.S. 1 (1849) .................................................................................................. 34

Meshell v. State,
  739 S.W.2d 246 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) ........................................................... 32

Mistretta v. United States,
  488 U.S. 361 (1989) ............................................................................................ 13

Mitchell v. Forsyth,
   472 U.S. 511 (1985) ............................................................................................ 22

                                                          vii
Mutscher v. State,
  514 S.W.2d 905 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974) ........................................................... 40

Nixon v. United States,
   506 U.S. 224 (1993) ............................................................................................ 34

Pickle v. McCall,
   24 S.W. 265 (Tex. 1893)..................................................................................... 34

Saldano v. State,
   70 S.W.3d 873 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) ............................................................. 25

Shade v. U.S. Congress,
   942 F. Supp. 2d 43 (D.D.C. 2013) ...................................................................... 40

Smith v. Flack,
  728 S.W.2d 784 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) ........................................................... 22

Spokane Grain & Fuel Co. v. Lyttaker,
   109 P. 316 (Wash. 1910) .................................................................................... 34

State Emps. Bargaining Agent Coal. v. Rowland,
   494 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2007) ................................................................................. 42

State ex rel. Cason v. Bond,
   495 S.W.2d 385 (Mo. 1973) ............................................................................... 34

State ex rel. Dickson v. Saiz,
   308 P.2d 205 (N.M. 1957) .................................................................................. 34

State ex rel. Lykos v. Fine,
   330 S.W.3d 904 (Tex. Crim App. 2011) ................................................12, 19, 28

State ex rel. Wis. Senate v. Thompson,
   424 N.W.2d 385 (Wis. 1988).............................................................................. 34

State v. Dankworth,
   672 P.2d 148 (Alaska Ct. App. 1983) ................................................................. 42

State v. Holton,
   997 A.2d 828 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2010), aff’d, 24 A.3d 678 (Md.
   2011) .............................................................................................................41, 42

                                                           viii
State v. Moff,
   154 S.W.3d 599 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) ........................................................... 10

State v. Neufeld,
   926 P.2d 1325 (Kan. 1996) ................................................................................. 42

State v. Rhine,
   297 S.W.3d 301 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (Keller, P.J., concurring) .................. 31

Tenney v. Brandhove,
   341 U.S. 367 (1951) ................................................................................38, 40, 43

Torres Rivera v. Calderon Serra,
   412 F.3d 205 (1st Cir. 2005) ............................................................................... 42

United States v. Beery,
  678 F.2d 856 (10th Cir. 1982) ............................................................................ 44

United States v. Brewster,
  408 U.S. 501 (1972) ................................................................................40, 41, 44

United States v. Dowdy,
  479 F.2d 213 (4th Cir. 1973) .............................................................................. 42

United States v. Helstoski,
  442 U.S. 477 (1979) ......................................................................................39, 41

United States v. Hollywood Motor Car Co.,
  458 U.S. 263 (1982) ............................................................................................ 45

United States v. Johnson,
  383 U.S. 169 (1966) ..........................................................................39, 41, 42, 44

United States v. Kolter,
  71 F.3d 425 (D.C. Cir. 1995) .............................................................................. 44

United States v. Lanier,
  520 U.S. 259 (1997) ............................................................................................ 46

United States v. Myers,
  635 F.2d 932 (2d Cir. 1980) .........................................................................21, 22

                                                         ix
United States v. Renzi,
  686 F. Supp. 2d 956 (D. Ariz. 2010) .................................................................. 44

United States v. Rose,
  28 F.3d 181 (D.C. Cir. 1994) .............................................................................. 21

United States v. Rostenkowski,
  59 F.3d 1291 (D.C. Cir. 1995) ............................................................................ 44

United States v. Swindall,
  971 F.2d 1531 (11th Cir. 1992) .................................................................... 43, 44

United States v. Zielezinski,
  740 F.2d 727 (9th Cir. 1984) .............................................................................. 44

Women’s Emergency Network v. Bush,
  323 F.3d 937 (11th Cir. 2003) ............................................................................ 43

STATUTES
Tex. Penal Code § 39.02(a)(2) ...........................................................................45, 46

OTHER AUTHORITIES
1 GEORGE D. BRADEN ET AL., THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF
   TEXAS: AN ANNOTATED AND COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS (George D.
   Braden ed. 1977) ................................................................................................. 33

G. DIX AND R. DAWSON, 43A TEX. PRAC. SERIES: CRIMINAL PRACTICE
   AND PROCEDURE § 42.254 (Supp. 2005) ............................................................. 19

Senate Research Center, Budget 101: A Guide to the Budget Process
   in Texas (Jan. 2013) ............................................................................................ 26

Tex. Const. art. II, § 1 .............................................................................................. 17

Tex. Const. art. III, § 21 ........................................................................................... 18

Tex. Const. art. III, § 49a ......................................................................................... 25

Tex. Const. art. IV, § 9............................................................................................. 39

Tex. Const. art. IV, § 14.....................................................................................36, 40

                                                            x
Tex. Const. art. XV, §§ 1-5 ...................................................................................... 36

TEX. PRAC. SERIES: CRIMINAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 42.254
  (Supp. 2005) ........................................................................................................ 19

                                                           xi
TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS:
      COMES NOW Appellant, James Richard “Rick” Perry (Governor Perry),

and pursuant to the Court’s Order of October 7, 2015, presents his brief on the

merits addressing his grounds for review, and would respectfully show this

Honorable Court the following:

                              Statement of the Case
      In August 2014, a two-count indictment was returned against Governor

Perry, alleging that he violated Sections 36.03(a)(1), 1.07(a)(9)(F) (Count II,

coercion of public servant), and 39.02(a)(2) (Count I, abuse of official capacity) of

the Texas Penal Code by threatening to exercise, and then actually exercising, the

authority vested in the Governor by the Texas Constitution to veto appropriations.

CR4-5. Ten days later, Governor Perry filed an application for pretrial writ of

habeas corpus contesting the legality of his restraint and seeking to bar his

prosecution on both counts, primarily on constitutional grounds. CR11. After the

district court denied relief, CR464-84, he appealed to the Third Court of Appeals.

In a published opinion, that court held that none of Governor Perry’s nine

constitutional challenges to Count I or seven of his eleven constitutional challenges

to Count II were cognizable because they were not “facial,” but merely “as

applied.” Slip Op. at 10-32. The court then granted relief on Count II because the

statute was facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment. Id. at 32-97. The

                                         1
court found it unnecessary to address Governor Perry’s cognizable, facial

vagueness challenges to the statute. Id. at 97.

       Governor Perry filed his petition for discretionary review on August 18,

2015, presenting four grounds to challenge the decision that Count I was not

cognizable by habeas corpus review. Two weeks later, the State Prosecuting

Attorney, but not the Attorney Pro Tem that presented and sought the indictment,

filed her petition for discretionary review attacking the court of appeals’ decision

that Count II was unconstitutionally overbroad.1 On October 7, 2015, this Court

granted both petitions.2

1
        See State’s Petition for Discretionary Review at 2, citing Ex parte Perry, Slip Op. at 97.
However, the court of appeals actually held that the statutory scheme “is facially invalid under
the First Amendment and is thus unenforceable.” Id.
2
        In light of the State’s petition, Governor Perry moved for leave to file a supplemental
petition adding grounds for review 5 through 8, which complained of the court of appeals’
decision that seven of Governor Perry’s constitutional claims as to Count II were non-
cognizable. This Court granted leave to file this previously-submitted supplemental petition on
September 10, 2015, but did not grant review on those grounds. Telephone call from Abel
Acosta, Clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals, to David Botsford, counsel for Governor Perry
on October 14, 2015. David Botsford notified Lisa McMinn, State Prosecuting Attorney, of this
telephone call immediately thereafter.

                                                2
                               Grounds for Review
1.   Whether the Third Court of Appeals erred by holding that all nine of
     Governor Perry’s constitutional challenges to Count I were “as applied”
     challenges to the abuse of official capacity statute and therefore not
     cognizable in a pretrial application for writ of habeas corpus?3

2.   Whether the Third Court of Appeals erred by holding that Governor Perry’s
     challenges to Count I based upon Article II, Section I of the Texas
     Constitution—separation of powers—were “as applied” challenges to the
     abuse of official capacity statute and therefore not cognizable in a pretrial
     application for writ of habeas corpus?4

3.   Whether the Third Court of Appeals erred by holding that Governor Perry’s
     challenges to Count I based upon Article III, Section 21 of the Texas
     Constitution—Speech and Debate Clause and common law legislative
     immunity—were “as applied” challenges to the abuse of official capacity
     statute and therefore not cognizable in a pretrial application for writ of
     habeas corpus?5

4.   Whether, even if all of Governor Perry’s constitutional challenges to Count I
     were in fact “as applied” challenges, the Third Court of Appeals erred in
     failing to recognize that the same rationale that requires “exceptions” for
     other “as applied” challenges—specifically prosecutions that would
     constitute double jeopardy or would be barred by limitations—should apply,
     with even greater force, to a prosecution based solely on a defendant’s
     exercise of conduct protected by the Speech and Debate Clause and the
     Separation of Powers provisions of the Texas Constitution and the common
     law doctrine of legislative immunity?6

3
     See CR14-16, 41-42, 48-49, 409, 417-19 and 464-73.
4
     See CR14-16, 41-42, 48-49, 409, 417-19 and 464-73.
5
     See CR14-16, 41-42, 48-49, 409, 417-19 and 464-73.
6
     See CR14-16, 41-42, 48-49, 409, 417-19 and 464-73.

                                          3
                             Statement of the Facts
      On August 15, 2014, a Travis County grand jury returned a two-count

indictment against then-Governor James Richard “Rick” Perry. The indictment

alleged that Governor Perry broke the law by threatening to veto an appropriation

item and subsequently issuing a veto. CR4-5. Count I, which alleges an Abuse of

Official Capacity under Section 39.02(a) of the Texas Penal Code, states:

      On or about June 14, 2013, in the County of Travis, Texas, James
      Richard “Rick” Perry, with intent to harm another, to wit, Rosemary
      Lehmberg and the Public Integrity Unit of the Travis County District
      Attorney’s Office, intentionally or knowingly misused government
      property by dealing with such property contrary to an agreement
      under which defendant held such property or contrary to the oath of
      office he took as a public servant, such government property being
      monies having a value of in excess of $200,000 which were approved
      and authorized by the Legislature of the State of Texas to fund the
      continued operation of the Public Integrity Unit of the Travis County
      District Attorney’s Office, and which had come into defendant’s
      custody or possession by virtue of the defendant’s office as a public
      servant, namely, Governor of the State of Texas.

CR4-5. The gist of this charge is that Governor Perry “misused” government

property by vetoing funding for the Travis County Public Integrity Unit (“PIU”).

CR4-5.   If the words of the indictment left any doubt that the charge might

somehow encompass some other conduct, the State quashed that doubt by

conceding that the gravamen of Count I is the veto. In its “Bill of Particulars and

Amendment of Indictment,” filed in response to a suggestion from the trial judge,

the State explained: “Defendant Perry misused his gubernatorial power to veto a

                                        4
legislatively-approved appropriation of funds for the Public Integrity Section of the

Travis County District Attorney Office.”(emphasis added).7 That document further

explained that Governor Perry allegedly “misused government property that was

subject to his custody and possession in that he used the lawful power of

gubernatorial veto for an unlawful purpose, to wit: eliminating funding for the

Public Integrity Unit after Ms. Lehmberg refused to resign from her elected

position as Travis County District Attorney.” CR5 (emphasis added).8

       The indictment appears to allege that Count I is a first degree felony offense,

based on the rationale that the revenues that would subsequently enter the State

Treasury but (as a result of the veto) not be expended would exceed $200,000. But

the veto power is an intangible right of the Governor without discernable monetary

value, and certainly not the value of the amount of whatever appropriation was

vetoed.    Thus, even if Governor Perry had committed a criminal offense by

exercising his constitutional responsibility to exercise the veto when he thought

appropriate, such offense would properly be classified a Class C misdemeanor

under Section 39.02(c)(1).9

       On August 19, 2014, Governor Perry was processed by the Travis County

7
        March 2, 2015, Supplemental Clerk’s Record at 4.
8
        A second count, which alleged that Governor Perry committed Coercion of a Public
Servant under Sections 36.03(a)(1) and 1.07(a)(9)(F) of the Texas Penal Code, was dismissed by
the court of appeals based on the facial unconstitutionality of the statute. The Court has granted
the State’s petition for discretionary review challenging that judgment.

                                                5
Sheriff and released on bond pending trial. CR8-10.

       On August 25, 2014, Governor Perry filed an Application for Pretrial Writ

of Habeas Corpus (the “Application”). He challenged the legality of his restraint

and specifically sought “to bar the prosecution” on both counts. CR14. The

Application presented nine constitutional claims as to Count I. CR17-18,10 and

sought dismissal and a bar to any further prosecution as a remedy. CR49.

       The district court gave the State almost three months to respond, and the

State filed its response on November 7, 2014. CR274. Governor Perry filed a

reply to the State’s response on November 17, 2014. CR391.

       Fourteen nationally-known constitutional scholars filed an amicus curiae

brief in support of Governor Perry’s Application. CR367-90. The amici supported

Governor Perry’s prayer for dismissal of Count I on two grounds: (1) that the

constitutional doctrine of Separation of Powers precluded the Legislature from

criminalizing the exercise of a constitutionally authorized gubernatorial veto; and

(2) that Governor Perry cannot be prosecuted for his veto because he is entitled to

absolute legislative immunity for any exercise of his veto power. CR375-84.11

       On January 27, 2015, the district court denied the Application without a

9
         See March 2, 2015 Supplemental Clerk’s Record at 38.
10
         These nine constitutional claims are set forth in the court of appeals opinion at 6-7 and
reproduced at TAB 1.
11
         The amici also supported Governor Perry’s prayer for dismissal of Count II on the ground
that it criminalizes speech protected by the First Amendment. CR384-89.

                                                6
hearing. CR464-84. The court ruled that none of Governor Perry’s constitutional

challenges to Count I were cognizable in a pretrial habeas proceeding because they

raised merely as-applied, not facial, constitutional arguments. CR468-73. While

the court acknowledged that Perry’s arguments were “compelling” and “may be

relevant at a later time,” it declined to reach their merits, stating that “the court’s

hands are tied” under its reading of this Court’s precedents regarding cognizability.

CR472-73.

      Governor Perry timely appealed to the Third Court of Appeals. The

constitutional scholars (with some additions) who had filed an amicus curiae brief

in the district court renewed their support of Governor Perry’s prayer for dismissal

of Count II. Amici urged the same two grounds as it had in the district court.

      On July 24, 2015, the court issued an opinion and judgment.

                            Summary of the Argument

      The court of appeals quoted, with seeming approval, the district court’s

observations that Governor Perry’s claims are “compelling,” “unique,”

“important,” and “certainly deserv[ing] of careful consideration in an appropriate

forum.” Slip Op. at 8 (quoting CR472-73). But like the district court, the court of

appeals believed that this Court’s “binding precedents” prevented consideration of

these claims in a pretrial habeas corpus proceeding. Id. at 2, 25-32, 97. Both

courts concluded that the label “as applied,” regardless of the context in which it is

                                          7
used, requires the denial of any pretrial habeas relief (unless the claim falls into

one of two discrete exceptions to the “facial/as-applied” dichotomy). See Id. at 25-

32, CR471-73. This approach was wrong at every turn.

      To begin with, all of Governor Perry’s constitutional claims are cognizable

under the principles and policies previously pronounced and currently employed

by this Court. Far from the “label and go home” approach of the courts below, this

Court evaluates cognizability based on substance, not mere form. It makes a multi-

faceted inquiry about whether considering the grant of extraordinary relief before

trial would ultimately advance the sound administration of justice. When such an

inquiry is conducted on the face of this record Governor Perry’s are clearly

cognizable.

      One important consideration for this Court has been whether a pretrial

review is essential to prevent the irremediable loss of constitutional rights. Like

other claims that must be considered before trial—such as double-jeopardy or

limitations—Governor Perry cannot adequately assert his constitutional rights here

by merely interposing them as defenses at trial. Like those claims, many of the

constitutional principles Governor Perry invokes here, such as the Separation of

Powers, the Speech and Debate Clause, and legislative immunity, assert “that the

trial court lacked the power to proceed” on the charges in the first instance. And

like double-jeopardy and limitations, these asserted rights cannot be protected

                                         8
unless they are addressed and resolved before trial.

      A second consideration for this Court is judicial economy. In fact-bound

cases, the outcome-determinative questions must await trial for resolution. But

here the opposite is true. Judicial economy is served by considering Governor

Perry’s challenges now, because his legal arguments will wholly pretermit the need

for a trial on Count I if any of his grounds persuade the Court.

      Third, and related to judicial economy, this Court has considered whether

the applicant would be entitled to immediate release from further proceedings if he

prevails to be an important justification for pretrial review.      Governor Perry

certainly meets this test; if he prevails on any arguments regarding Count I, and the

lower court’s dismissal of Count II is not disturbed, then the prosecution against

him must be dismissed.

      Finally, even assuming arguendo that Governor Perry’s claims were not of

the type that this Court has already recognized as cognizable, the Court should

clarify the law to permit immediate resolution of the merits of his challenges.

Governor Perry’s constitutional claims pose fundamental questions about any

governor’s authority to exercise one of that office’s core constitutional

responsibilities—the review of legislative acts, including the possibility of veto.

The basic comity that one branch of government owes to its coordinate branches

compels a prompt and conclusive answer to these questions.

                                          9
         When the merits of Governor Perry’s challenges are addressed, the outcome

 is clear—the Constitution prohibits this prosecution against Governor Perry.

 Accordingly, this Court should grant the writ of habeas corpus and dismiss this

 unfortunate and misguided prosecution.

                                       Argument

I.       Governor Perry’s Claims Are Properly Cognizable
         The court of appeals misapprehended the nature of Governor Perry’s as-

 applied challenges. Because these challenges can be decided from the face of the

 indictment, unlike typical as-applied challenges which require development of a

 factual record at trial, Governor Perry’s as-applied challenges are cognizable in

 pretrial habeas. All the factors underlying Texas habeas jurisprudence support

 cognizability here. Indeed, the most wasteful and prejudicial course would be to

 proceed to trial with the legally appropriate means of pretrial resolution so close at

 hand.

         A.    The Standard of Review is De Novo.
         Every aspect of this case is subject to de novo review by this Court.

         First, whether an issue should be addressed by habeas review, rather than by

 an appeal after trial, is a purely legal determination that appellate courts review de

 novo. See Ex parte Brown, 158 S.W.3d 449, 453 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also

 State v. Moff, 154 S.W.3d 599, 601 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (standard of review is

                                           10
de novo for legal determinations that do not turn on evaluation of witness’s

credibility or demeanor or on disputed facts).

      Second, on the merits, Governor Perry’s claims are also subject to de novo

review, because the constitutionality of a statute is also a pure question of law. See

Ex parte Lo, 424 S.W.3d 10, 14 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013).

      Finally, any questions concerning the application of law to facts “when a

court confronts important, clearly defined issues of first impression” are considered

de novo. Henderson v. State, 962 S.W.2d 544, 551 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).

      For all these reasons, a trial on Count I could add no clarity to this record for

purposes of constitutional review.

      B.     The court of appeals misunderstood this Court’s approach to the
             cognizability of pretrial habeas claims.

             1.     This Court’s approach to cognizability is functional.
      This Court has recognized that “[p]retrial habeas should be reserved for

situations in which the protection of the applicant’s substantive rights or the

conservation of judicial resources would be better served by interlocutory review.”

Ex parte Weise, 55 S.W.3d 617, 620 (Tex. 2001). The Court has identified three

categories of cases in which the writ is available:

      First, the accused may challenge the State’s power to restrain him at
      all. Second, the accused may challenge the manner of his pretrial
      restraint, i.e., the denial of bail or conditions attached to bail. Third,
      the accused may raise certain issues which, if meritorious, would bar
      prosecution or conviction.

                                          11
Ex parte Smith, 178 S.W.3d 797, 801 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (footnotes omitted).

The Court’s cases also impose prudential, but not constitutionally-mandated, limits

on the issues that are cognizable in a pretrial habeas proceeding, none of which

would be offended by entertaining Governor Perry’s claims:

      Pretrial habeas is unavailable when there is an adequate remedy by
       appeal. It should be reserved for situations in which the protections of
       the applicant’s substantive rights or the conservation of judicial
       resources would be better served.12

      Because an interlocutory appeal is an extraordinary remedy, appellate
       courts need to be careful to ensure that a pretrial writ is “not misused”
       to secure pretrial appellate review of matters that “should not be put
       before appellate courts at the pretrial stage”—a variation of ripeness.13

      Pretrial habeas is not appropriate when the question presented, even if
       resolved in the applicant’s favor, would not result in immediate
       release from restraint.14

      Pretrial habeas should not be used when a complete factual record is
       required to address the claim, which includes most as-applied
       challenges to the constitutionality of the statute upon which the
       offense is based.15

While this Court has cited Weise for the broad proposition that pretrial habeas

“may not be used to advance an ‘as applied’ challenge,” Ex Parte Ellis, 309

12
        Ex parte Weise, 55 S.W.3d 617, 619-20 (Tex. 2001).
13
        Ex Parte Doster, 303 S.W.3d 720, 724 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (quoting Ex parte Smith,
178 S.W.3d 797, 801 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Weise, 55 S.W.3d at 619-21.
14
        Weise, 55 S.W.3d at 619; Doster, 303 S.W.3d at 724.
15
        Ex Parte Ellis, 309 S.W.3d 71, 79 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010); see also State ex rel. Lykos v.
Fine, 330 S.W.3d 904, 910 (Tex. Crim App. 2011) (“An ‘as applied’ challenge is brought during
or after a trial on the merits, for it is only then that the trial judge and the reviewing courts have
the particular facts and circumstances of the case needed to determine whether the statute or law
has been applied in an unconstitutional manner.”).

                                                 12
S.W.3d 71, 79 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (citing Ex parte Weise, 55 S.W.3d at 620-

21), the principles underlying both decisions actually support consideration of

Governor Perry’s challenges, as discussed below. This Court’s tests serve to

ensure that courts are open to proper cases as well as to ensure that they are closed

to improper cases. Unsurprisingly, therefore, Texas courts have considered pretrial

habeas on the merits in what were technically “as applied” challenges far afield

from double jeopardy16 or limitations,17 including:

      A claim that the statute violates separation of powers because, if
       granted, that separate and independent constitutional provision
       eliminates the power of the courts to proceed.18

      A claim of collateral estoppel because, if granted, the re-litigation of
       the issue would be barred, although it may not bar another trial

16
         Ex parte Robinson, 641 S.W.2d 552, 555 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982); Ex parte Rathmell, 717
S.W.2d 33, 34 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (noting that the Supreme Court had made it clear that an
interlocutory appeal of a double jeopardy claim “is not only a proper but a preferred remedy,”
because the right against twice being placed in jeopardy would be “significantly undermined if
appellate review of double jeopardy claims were postponed until after conviction and sentence”).
17
         A claim that the face of the indictment demonstrates that any prosecution is barred by the
statute of limitations, unless this is a “reparable” pleading defect, is cognizable in pretrial habeas.
Weise, 55 S.W.3d at 620; see also Smith, 178 S.W.3d at 804.
18
         In Ex parte Elliott, 973 S.W.2d 737, 738-43 (Tex. App—Austin 1998, pet. ref’d), this
same court of appeals addressed the merits of a pretrial habeas challenge based on a violation of
the nondelegation doctrine embodied within Texas’ separation of powers provisions. Elliott cited
this Court’s opinions in Ex parte Humphrey, 244 S.W. 822 (Tex. Crim. App. 1922) and Ex parte
Leslie, 223 S.W.2d 227 (Tex. Crim. App. 1920), both of which also involved pretrial habeas
challenges to statutes on the basis of a violation of the nondelegation doctrine. Cf. Ex parte Gill,
413 S.W.3d 425, 431-32 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (considering but overruling the State’s
separation of powers challenge to Article 17.151 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure on
discretionary review by a pretrial habeas applicant). The prohibition on unwarranted delegation
of lawmaking power is “rooted in the principle of separation of powers that underlies our
tripartite system of Government.” Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361, 371 (1989).

                                                 13
        altogether.19

      A claim of illegal restraint by an order deferring adjudication of
       guilt.20

      A claim that a statute cannot be constitutionally applied to the facts
       alleged on the face of the indictment.21

        From these holdings, one can glean at least three key considerations

underlying the Court’s jurisprudence regarding cognizability in pretrial habeas.

The first is whether there is an adequate remedy by appeal, which includes analysis

of whether the right at stake would be undermined unless the issues were

cognizable in pretrial habeas. See Weise, 55 S.W.3d at 619-20; Ex parte Robinson,

641 S.W.2d 552, 554-55 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982). The second consideration is

judicial economy. See Smith, 178 S.W.3d at 802 (“There is no point in wasting

scarce judicial and societal resources or putting the defendant to great expense,

inconvenience, and anxiety if the ultimate result is never in question.”).22 The third

is whether resolution of the question presented, if resolved in favor of the

applicant, would result in the immediate release of the applicant. See Ex Parte

Watkins, 73 S.W.3d 264, 275 (Tex. Crim App. 2002). As discussed below, see

infra Part I(C), all nine of Governor Perry’s constitutional challenges to Count I

19
       Ex Parte Watkins, 73 S.W.3d 264, 273 (Tex. Crim App. 2002).
20
       Ex Parte McCullough, 966 S.W.2d 529, 531 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998).
21
       Ex parte Boetscher, 812 S.W.2d 600, 601-04 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
22
       But see Doster, 303 S.W.3d at 725 (noting that the Court has “never actually resolved
whether [judicial economy], absent a jurisdictional or constitutional defect, would be sufficient
to make a claim cognizable on pretrial habeas”).

                                               14
satisfy these principles underlying this Court’s pretrial habeas jurisprudence.

             2.     The court of appeals adopted an erroneous “label-driven”
                    approach to deciding cognizability.
      In denying the cognizability of Governor Perry’s nine constitutional claims

as to Count I, the court of appeals gave controlling weight not to the guiding

principles discussed above, but to shorthand labels that sometimes, but not

invariably, reflect the results when those standards are properly applied. Thus, the

court below wrongly considered itself “duty-bound” to deny relief because, under

the law as articulated by this Court, “such potential harms incurred” by defendants

like Governor Perry “are simply deemed insufficient in themselves to provide a

basis for relief through pretrial habeas corpus.” Slip Op. at 5, 32.

      Governor Perry always recognized that true “as applied” challenges—those

that are particular to the facts that may not even have been determined yet, rather

than those that are purely legal—should not be resolved via pretrial habeas

proceedings. But the court of appeals decided that further judicial inquiry was

foreclosed based on this self-labeling alone. Id. at 11. Hence, the court’s only

references to the Speech and Debate Clause or the Separation of Powers

requirement of the Texas Constitution—other than acknowledging the district

court’s characterization of those claims as “compelling”23—came in its description

23
      Slip Op. at 8, citing CR472-73.

                                          15
of Perry’s arguments, not in its analysis of whether those claims were cognizable.24

Despite the length of its opinion and the care it obviously devoted to this case, the

court apparently failed to consider, and certainly failed to explain, why these

claims were not the paradigmatic examples of claims that required pretrial

resolution.

      Commendably, however, the court of appeals indicated that, but for its

perception of absolute bar that it understood this Court to have imposed, it would

have regarded the claims as cognizable. It did so by exploring at length various

functional and common-sense tests and standards that this Court has used to

demarcate what is cognizable in habeas from what is not. Specifically, the court

noted that this Court will grant habeas relief when double jeopardy has attached to

a subsequent prosecution (id. at 21, 30), or when a prosecution would be barred by

limitations. (Id. at 21, 23). This analysis was correct; what was erroneous was the

court’s view that it was powerless or incompetent to examine the rationale behind

these outcomes to decide whether the same result was required here.

      But had the court below explored not merely the existence of this Court’s

functional tests, but the reasons behind them, it could not have denied that mere

labels have never been and cannot be dispositive. Even though Governor Perry has

consistently conceded that his challenges would not invalidate Section 39.02(a)(2)

24
      See Slip Op. at 20, 21, 22.

                                         16
for all purposes against all possible defendants, he has delivered many pages of

arguments and authorities to both the trial court and the court of appeals explaining

in detail why his constitutional arguments should be cognizable now. The State’s

violation of Separation of Powers,25 the Speech and Debate Clause,26 and the

doctrine of legislative immunity flowing therefrom all assert “that the trial court

lacked the power to proceed” at all, the same as a normal facial challenge to the

constitutionality of a statute. Rather than analyze whether the challenges here were

of the type that have been and should be resolved before trial, however, the court

of appeals contented itself with pointing out that Governor Perry himself had

labeled “virtually all” of his claims as “as applied.” Id. at 1, 6-10.

      In short, the court of appeals seemed to believe that, absent binding

precedent from this Court involving the precise circumstances presented here—a

prosecution of a Texas governor for threatening to exercise, and then exercising, a

veto, it could take no action regardless of how much this Court’s jurisprudence

justified the cognizability of Governor Perry’s claims.                  The inevitable

consequence, of course, is that the State gets a free shot to try any governor for any

veto until this Court chooses to use that case to expand its list. That cannot be the

law, and the Court should make clear that the court of appeals erred in imputing

that intention to this Court. Governor Perry now turns to a more comprehensive

25
      Tex. Const. art. II, § 1.

                                          17
analysis of how this Court’s precedents comfortably coexist with the cognizability

of his claims

      C.        Under an appropriate analysis, all of Governor Perry’s claims are
                cognizable.
      The court of appeals employed a mistaken methodology to assess

cognizability, and it consequently reached an erroneous conclusion. Proper

application of this Court’s precedents makes clear why Governor Perry’s claims

must be considered before trial.

                1.    All of Governor Perry’s challenges are the functional
                      equivalent of a facial attack on Section 39.02(a)(2).
      Despite this Court’s shorthand observation that pretrial habeas “may not be

used to advance an ‘as applied’ challenge,” Ex Parte Ellis, 309 S.W.3d at 79,

neither the facts of that case nor the Weise case on which it relied support a

conclusion that this statement is a hard and fast rule that supplants the Court’s

flexible inquiry. Ellis involved a vagueness challenge to the definition of “funds”

contained in the money laundering statute. Although the applicants had labeled the

claim as a “facial” challenge and the court of appeals had determined it to be

cognizable, this Court held that it was a really an “as applied” challenge that was

not cognizable. The Court reached this conclusion because: (1) a facial vagueness

challenge, in the absence of First Amendment implications, “can succeed only if it

26
      Tex. Const. art. III, § 21.

                                         18
is shown that the law is unconstitutionally vague in all of its applications,” 309
S.W.3d at 80, and (2) applicants had not argued that the statute implicated the First

Amendment or was vague in all of its applications. Id. Here, of course, the first

Amendment is implicated.

      Weise involved a challenge to the illegal dumping statute. The applicant

claimed that the absence of a culpable mental state in the statutory scheme

rendered the statute unconstitutional as applied to him. According to the Court,

Weise was not attacking the power of the trial court to proceed, but was simply

raising an attack on the charging instrument that could have been raised by motion

to quash. 55 S.W.3d 617 at 620-21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). In the course of its

analysis, the Court discussed the “variety of factors” and “protections” such as

limitations, double jeopardy and bail, that “would be effectively undermined if

these issues were not cognizable” at the habeas stage. Id. at 619-20.

      This Court’s jurisprudence as a whole make clear that the “facial/as-applied”

dichotomy applies (and makes sense) only when the challenge “requires a recourse

to evidence,” which must await trial. State ex rel. Lykos v. Fine, 330 S.W.3d 904,

910 & n.22 (Tex. Crim App. 2011) (quoting G. DIX       AND   R. DAWSON, 43A TEX.

PRAC. SERIES: CRIMINAL PRACTICE        AND    PROCEDURE § 42.254 (Supp. 2005)).

When, on the other hand, as-applied challenges can be decided solely by reference

to the indictment and the statute, as here, they are really legal challenges to the

                                         19
statute itself. They rely only on the indictment and the statutes, not the underlying

facts or circumstances to be proven at a hearing or trial. As and matter of law and

logic, they stand on the same footing, insofar as the cognizability principles

described above are concerned, as a facial challenge. See Smith, 178 S.W.3d at

802 (“There is no point in wasting scarce judicial and societal resources or putting

the defendant to great expense, inconvenience, and anxiety if the ultimate result is

never in question.”). They are, in short, functionally equivalent. See Karenev v.

State, 281 S.W.3d 428, 435 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (Cochran, J., concurring,

joined by Price, Womack, and Johnson, JJ.) (“A facial challenge is based solely

upon the face of the penal statute and the charging instrument, while an applied

challenge depends upon the evidence adduced at a trial or hearing.” (emphasis

added)); see also CR417-18. And, because they involve the right not to be tried at

all, they are the type of claim which judicial efficiency and fairness require to be

considered and resolved at the outset of the prosecution.

             2.    The key reasons to permit pretrial habeas review are all
                   present here.

                   a.     Governor Perry’s challenges can be resolved on the
                          face of the indictment.
      First, Governor Perry’s challenges can be decided based solely on the face of

the indictment and statutes under which he is charged—practically the definition of

a “facial” challenge. He contends that those facts sufficiently demonstrate that the

                                         20
statute, as applied to those facts, is unconstitutional and void as to his prosecution.

This is the essence of this Court’s opinion in Ex parte Boetscher, 812 S.W.2d 600

(Tex. Crim. App. 1991): the indictment alleged facts (i.e., that Boetscher “was then

residing in another state, to wit: Michigan” id. at 602) that formed the basis of his

equal protection argument, rendering the statute void as to the State’s attempted

prosecution. See also infra Part I(C)(2)(discussing Boetscher in greater detail).

                    b.    Governor Perry’s challenges to the State’s right to try
                          him at all can only be vindicated in pretrial
                          proceedings.
      Second, because Governor Perry’s constitutional challenges involve a right

not to be tried, they by definition cannot be adequately resolved by direct appeal

after trial. CR42, 417-18. When prosecution of a public official violates the

doctrine of separation of powers, “the policies underlying that doctrine” require

that the affected official “be shielded from standing trial.” United States v. Rose,

28 F.3d 181, 186 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (quoting United States v. Myers, 635 F.2d 932,

935 (2d Cir. 1980)). Similarly, the Speech or Debate Clause was designed to

protect officials acting in a legislative capacity “not only from the consequences of

litigation’s results but also from the burden of defending themselves.” Helstoski v.

Meanor, 442 U.S. 500, 508 (1979) (quotation marks omitted) (quoting

Dombrowksi v. Eastland, 387 U.S. 82, 85 (1967)); see also Rose, 28 F.3d at 185.

      Governor Perry’s legislative-immunity defense likewise involves a right not

                                          21
to be tried. See Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 525 (1985) (absolute immunity

is “an entitlement not to stand trial”); In re Perry, 60 S.W.3d 857, 859-60 (Tex.

2001) (legislative immunity “shields legislative actors not only from liability, but

also from being required to testify about their legislative activities” and “from the

burden of defending themselves” (quoting Dombrowski, 387 U.S. at 85)). The

mere pendency of criminal proceedings—and not just their eventual outcome—is

what imperils these constitutional principles, which are designed to safeguard

performance of core governmental functions.         See Myers, 635 F.2d at 936

(describing the heightened dangers associated with trials of elected officials,

including impairment of representation, irreparable political damage, and

intimidation by political rivals); see also CR42.

                   c.     Important policy considerations compel a pretrial
                          resolution of Governor Perry’s constitutional
                          challenges to the indictment.
      A post-trial appeal is an especially inadequate remedy here because the

indictment against Governor Perry interferes with the powers of the highest official

in state government. The current governor and his successors must be able to

discharge their official responsibilities, including use of the veto power, free from

any uncertainty about what conduct connected thereto may be criminal and what is

lawful. See Smith v. Flack, 728 S.W.2d 784, 792 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (“In

some cases, a remedy at law may technically exist; however, it may be

                                         22
nevertheless so uncertain, tedious, burdensome, slow, inconvenient, inappropriate

or ineffective as to be deemed inadequate.”); cf. In re Masonite Corp., 997 S.W.2d
194, 198 (Tex. 1999) (adequacy of an appellate remedy depends in part on the

public’s interest in efficient resolution of a dispute and does not “focu[s]

exclusively on whether the parties alone have an adequate appellate remedy”). If

there is no way short of a jury trial to vindicate the constitutional responsibility to

exercise the veto power when judged necessary by a governor, the veto power will

obviously be chilled by the specter of any number of prosecutors ready to pounce

(including, as here, prosecutors appointed in response to a criminal complaint

requesting the indictment of Governor Perry from a group seeking to avenge a

vetoed bill). The respect owed by each branch of the government to its coordinate

branches demands a prompt and definitive answer to the questions raised by this

prosecution.

               3.   Habeas review is cognizable under the state of the record as
                    recognized by the court of appeals
      The court of appeals expressed confusion that, in Ex parte Boetscher, 812
S.W.2d 600 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), and perhaps elsewhere, this Court “employ[ed]

‘as applied’ phrasing” even as its “analysis resembled that in a conventional facial

challenge.” Slip Op. at 28. But there is nothing surprising about this at all. The

Court was focused on the common-sense, functional outcome of applying

meaningful principles to separate cognizable from non-cognizable claims; it did not

                                          23
view the affixing of a label as the end of the inquiry. Only if the court of appeals’

faulty premise were correct—that “‘as applied’ phrasing” necessarily leads to non-

cognizability, regardless of context—would Boetscher be surprising.

         In Boetscher, the defendant was charged with criminal nonsupport of his

children, which a statute enhanced to a felony solely because he resided out of

state. Boetscher, 812 S.W.2d at 601. He brought a pretrial habeas proceeding to

challenge the enhancement provision of the statute on equal-protection grounds “as

applied to the unusual circumstances of his case” (i.e., his out-of-state residence at

the time of the offense). Id. at 603. The indictment specifically stated that “the

defendant was then residing in another state, to-wit: Michigan,” at the time of the

offense.     Id. at 602.       This Court held that this as-applied-to-the-indictment

challenge was cognizable in pretrial habeas, sustained the challenge, and ordered

the indictment dismissed. Id. at 603-04. The Court expressly declined to consider

whether the statute would be constitutional as applied in other scenarios. Id. at 604

n.8.27

27
        See also Ex parte Mattox, 683 S.W.2d 93, 95-96 (Tex. App.—Austin 1984, pet. ref’d),
where this same court of appeals affirmatively acknowledged its authority to consider and grant
habeas relief upon a challenge to the legal authority of the State to prosecute the accused. Id.
Mattox’s third and fourth issues on appeal challenged the constitutionality of the commercial
bribery statute as “vague on its face and as applied to the facts alleged in the indictments.” Id. at
96. Both challenges were overruled, but only after the court addressed the arguments on the
merits, stating the following regarding Mattox’s “as applied” fourth issue:
        For one lawyer to offer another lawyer an economic benefit in consideration for
        the latter’s breach of a fiduciary duty owed to a client is not a legitimate
        negotiating tactic; it is bribery. It is just such conduct that has been alleged

                                                24
       The court of appeals attempted to distinguish Boetscher from Governor

Perry’s case on the basis of that the former case “centered on the language of the

statute itself,” Slip Op. at 28-29, while Perry’s challenges “are intertwined [not

only] with disputes about what the underlying facts are” and “also with disputes

about whether those facts would constitute violations of the statutes under which

he is charged.” Id. at 29.          But the facts alleged in Count I are sufficient to

demonstrate that Governor Perry’s conduct was an exercise of his veto power

under Article IV, Section 14 of the Texas Constitution which is protected conduct

under the Speech or Debate Clause of Article III, Section 21 of the Texas

Constitution. The prosecution of Governor Perry by the judiciary—the Attorney

Pro Tem in the district court28—raises the purely legal question of whether the

prosecution violates the separation of powers expressly embodied in Article II,

Section 1 of the Texas Constitution. No other facts are necessary, although, for

instance, judicial notice of the laws governing Texas’ budget merely serve to

reinforce the utter inapplicability of Count I to a gubernatorial veto.29 Therefore,

         against Mattox in the indictments pending against him.
Id. at 98 (emphasis added).
28
         The attorney pro tem and his assistant are part of the judicial branch, Saldano v. State, 70
S.W.3d 873, 876 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002),
29
         The Texas Constitution requires the Texas Comptroller to provide the Legislature a
biennial revenue estimate (“BRE”) at the beginning of each regular legislative session. See Tex.
Const. art. III, § 49a. Because the Legislature is constitutionally prohibited from appropriating
more revenue than will be collected, the BRE is used by the Legislature to ensure that
appropriations will not exceed the anticipated revenue. Upon final passage of an appropriations
bill, it is sent to the Texas Comptroller to certify whether the anticipated revenue will be

                                                25
the court’s conclusion that Boetscher is distinguishable from Governor Perry’s

separation of powers and Speech or Debate Clause related claims is untenable: no

additional facts were necessary in Boetscher and none are necessary here.

      Indeed, Governor Perry easily satisfies all the standards for extraordinary

relief announced by this Court and actually discussed by the court of appeals:

                       Rest of Page Intentionally Left Blank

sufficient to cover the appropriations made by the Legislature. See Senate Research Center,
Budget 101: A Guide to the Budget Process in Texas at 3, 10 (Jan. 2013),
http://www.senate.state.tx.us/SRC/pdf/Budget_101-2011.pdf.

                                            26
 Court of Criminal Appeals standards           Why Governor Perry satisfies each
 correctly quoted by court of appeals          standard
 Habeas is an “extraordinary remedy (Slip      The court acknowledged this to be an
 Op. at 9)                                     extraordinary case (Id. at 31-32)
 Habeas to be used “only in very limited       Prosecuting a Governor for threatening to
 circumstances” (Id. at 9)                     veto and vetoing a bill is unprecedented;
                                               remedying that abuse is a “very limited
                                               circumstance”
 Habeas is “reserved for situations in         Not merely a governor’s own
 which the protection of the applicant’s       constitutional rights, but the preservation
 substantive rights or the conservation of     of each branch’s separate and enumerated
 judicial resources would be best served by powers are threatened when an
 interlocutory review” (Id.. at 9)             officeholder is indicted, with no allegation
                                               of bribery or corruption, for merely doing
                                               his job
 Habeas is “not available to `test the         Governor Perry does not challenge the
 sufficiency’ of the charging instrument”      sufficiency of this particular indictment in
 (Id. at 12, 14), and thus not available to    his writ, and certainly does not allege that
 challenge an indictment’s failure to          it merely contains a technical defect; nor
 include an element (like mens rea) (Slip      are his challenges hypothetical or
 Op. at 13), or a “hypothetical” complaint     speculative
 (like a pre-trial as applied challenge to a
 sentencing statute) (Id. at 15-16 & n.52),
 or where it would function like a
 “declaratory judgment” (Id. at 16)
 Habeas is instead available “where the        The gist of Governor Perry’s claims are
 alleged defect would bring into question      that the judicial branch cannot proceed
 the trial court’s power to proceed” (Id. at against a Governor for threatening or
 12)                                           exercising the veto itself
 Examples of where habeas would lie            As described below, this proves too
 include challenges based on limitations       much—limitations and double jeopardy
 (Id. at 12), or on facial unconstitutionality are not less “applied” to a particular
 (Id. at 13)                                   defendant than the claims urged by
                                               Governor Perry against both counts

See also Id. at 26-27 (summarizing some of these points). On every score, Perry’s

claims align with those that this Court has allowed, not those it has rejected. The

                                            27
court also failed to explain why, if “a ‘facial’ constitutional challenge seeks to

establish that the statute is unconstitutional and unenforceable as to any person,”

Id. at 11 (quoting State ex rel. Lykos, 330 S.W.3d 908 (emphasis added), and if

only such a facial challenge can be addressed by pretrial habeas, this Court has

granted such relief when neither requisite is met. Why should not an already-tried

defendant just patiently await the conclusion of his second trial to point out that

claim was constitutionally barred all along? And why should not a defendant who

was not timely prosecuted merely sit through his trial and attempt to mount a

defense, secure in the knowledge that any conviction, while perhaps temporarily

aggravating, will ultimately be reversed on appeal. After all, double jeopardy and

limitations are the ultimate “as applied” challenges, claiming only that one

particular defendant cannot be tried in this proceeding, even if the underlying

statute is valid.

       Of course, the court of appeals never questioned this Court’s jurisprudence.

Instead, the court contented itself with urging this Court to examine Governor

Perry’s claim and decide whether the “array of procedural mechanisms” should be

expanded for one “faced with . . . loss of liberty.” Id. at 4-5. But nothing in this

Court’s jurisprudence suggests that a lower court should confine its cognizability

inquiry to whether or not a particular fact pattern has been addressed by the court

of last resort, or that a lower court is powerless to apply this Court’s principles to

                                         28
rectify injustice.

       The court of appeals inexplicably failed to examine whether double jeopardy

and limitations are preordained as the lone “exceptions,” id. at 13, or whether they

are instead examples of the types of claims that courts properly resolve as a legal

matter before the legal system subjects itself and the defendant (and here, the

Texas form of government itself) to the rigors of trial. Nothing in this Court’s

cases requires the odd and narrow reading that isolates double jeopardy and

limitations from all other claims, whether or not materially indistinguishable for

the purposes of cognizability. Yet the court of appeals strained to read this Court’s

cases as narrowly as possible to make itself appear powerless to rectify injustice.

The lower courts would not have, and this Court will not now, in any way

undermine this Court’s jurisprudence on cognizability by reaching Governor

Perry’s constitutional claims. Few criminal defendants will have resort to Speech

and Debate or Separation of Powers defenses. Holding that Governor Perry’s

challenges are no less cognizable than constitutional double jeopardy or statutory

limitations challenges would leave this Court’s jurisprudence wholly intact.

       D.     If necessary, this Court should extend an exception to the
              cognizability doctrine.
       While Governor Perry steadfastly believes that his claims are cognizable

under the principles discussed above, if the Court has any reservations, then it

should create an extension of the current "exceptions," allowing pretrial habeas

                                         29
  review of constitutional claims that seek to bar a prosecution to the same extent

  that it allows review of claims under the Double Jeopardy Clause, collateral

  estoppel or the statute of limitations. While it may be rare for the constitutional

  impediments raised by Governor Perry to arise, and indeed they may never do so

  again, they are of paramount important to the political and criminal justice system

  in Texas. The issues raised here ae important not just to Governor Perry as an

  accused felon, but to the entire State; the reasons proffered to justify pre-trial

  review of other technically “as-applied” challenges apply with far greater force to

  this case.   Thus, if the circumstances attending this prosecution must be

  categorized (or classified) by this Court before habeas relief can be considered,

  Governor Perry urges the Court to do so in this proceeding.

II.     The State’s prosecution of Governor Perry is unconstitutional
        Because the court of appeals believed that Governor Perry’s challenges to

  Count I were not cognizable, it did not reach the merits. But it recognized the

  district court’s observations that Governor Perry’s claims are “compelling,”

  “unique,” “important,” and “certainly deserv[ing] of careful consideration in an

  appropriate forum.” Id. at 8. It also noted the need for this Court’s review, stating

  that “[i]f the Texas criminal justice system should operate differently, that change

  must come from the Court of Criminal Appeals or the Legislature.” Id. at 32. For

  the following reasons, the Court should not only accept the lower court’s invitation

                                           30
to entertain Governor Perry’s challenges, but, having done so, it should find the

prosecution against him to be void.

      A.     This prosecution violates the constitutional separation of powers
      The court of appeals erred by refusing to dismiss Count I of the indictment

as violating the Separation of Powers Clause of the Texas Constitution.30 Article

II, Section 1 of the Texas Constitution mandates a clear separation of the functions

of the coordinate branches of Texas government:

      The powers of the Government of the State of Texas shall be divided
      into three distinct departments, each of which shall be confided to a
      separate body of magistracy, to wit: Those which are Legislative to
      one; those which are Executive to another; and those which are
      Judicial to another; and no person, or collection of persons, being of
      one of these departments, shall exercise any power properly attached
      to either of the others, except in the instances herein expressly
      permitted.

      Hence, unlike in the federal system, the requirement of separated powers is

explicitly and emphatically set forth in our Constitution. See State v. Rhine, 297
S.W.3d 301, 314-315 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (Keller, P.J., concurring). “So

important is this division of governmental power that it was provided for in the

first section of the first article of the Constitution of the Republic of Texas, and

alone it constituted article 2 of each succeeding Constitution.” Langever v. Miller,

76 S.W.2d 1025, 1035 (Tex. 1934). The provision “reflects a belief on the part of

those who drafted and adopted our state constitution that one of the greatest threats

30
      This section addresses claims 3 and 4 as to Count I (i.e., Ground for Review 1, 2, and 4).

                                              31
to liberty is the accumulation of excessive power in a single branch of

government.” Armadillo Bail Bonds v. State, 802 S.W.2d 237, 239 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1990).

      Texas courts have long been vigilant in preventing any attempt by one

branch of government to encroach on the authority constitutionally secured to

another branch. Thus, “any attempt by one department of government to interfere

with the powers of another is null and void.” Meshell v. State, 739 S.W.2d 246,

252 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (quoting Ex parte Giles, 502 S.W.2d 774, 780 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1974)). The Separation of Powers Clause can be violated in two ways:

      (1) when one branch of government assumes or is delegated a power
      more properly attached to another branch, or

      (2) when one branch unduly interferes with another branch so that the
      other branch cannot effectively exercise its constitutionally assigned
      powers.

Lo, 424 S.W.3d at 28; Ex parte Gill, 413 S.W.3d at 431-32; see also Armadillo,
802 S.W.2d at 239. A statute that conflicts with any provision of the Texas

Constitution is, of course, void. See Cook v. State, 902 S.W.2d 471, 479 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1995). Indeed, “[w]hen the constitution speaks, it is supreme” and

“[a]n enduring and lasting government requires that it so remain.”        Ex parte

Halsted, 182 S.W.2d 479, 488 (Tex. Crim. App. 1944).

      In this case, the actions of the judicial branch—represented here by the

attorney pro tem, appointed by that district judge, and the panel of justices of the

                                        32
court of appeals—unduly interfere with the constitutionally-assigned powers of the

executive branch by scrutinizing a gubernatorial veto and the alleged threat

preceding that veto.         The power to veto, including the line-item veto of

appropriations, is one of the core duties assigned to a Texas Governor by our

Constitution. Article IV, Section 14 provides in part:

       If any bill presented to the Governor contains several items of
       appropriation he may object to one or more of such items, and
       approve the other portion of the bill. In such case he shall append to
       the bill, at the time of signing it, a statement of the items to which he
       objects, and no item so objected to shall take effect.

This language imposes no limits on the Governor’s authority to exercise the veto in

his or her unbounded discretion. As one authority noted: “The veto, particularly

the item veto, is perhaps the most significant of the Texas governor’s constitutional

powers . . . . [B]ecause he has no significant budgetary powers . . . the item veto is

the primary method by which he exercises some control over the amounts and

purposes of state expenditures.” 1 GEORGE D. BRADEN ET AL., THE CONSTITUTION

OF THE    STATE    OF   TEXAS: AN ANNOTATED           AND   COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS 339

(George D. Braden ed. 1977).31

       In exercising the veto power, a Governor acts in a legislative, not an

31
        Indeed, virtually any exercise of the veto power could be criminalized—or at least
harassed with prosecution—under the State’s interpretation of the law. For example, every
exercise of the veto, and particularly the line-item veto, will entail winners and losers. On the
State’s theory, such vetoes could nearly always be construed as a “misuse of government
property” done with “intent to harm another” under Texas Penal Code Section 39.02.

                                               33
executive, capacity, and thus is a member of a governing body.                            See Jessen

Assocs., Inc. v. Bullock, 531 S.W.2d 593, 598 (Tex. 1976) (governor’s “veto power

is a legislative function and not an executive function”); Fulmore v. Lane, 140
S.W. 405, 411 (Tex. 1911); Pickle v. McCall, 24 S.W. 265, 268 (Tex. 1893). This

is not an anomalous or outmoded view; the veto power is also characterized as a

legislative act in the federal system, Bogan v. Scott-Harris, 523 U.S. 44, 55 (1998),

and in the jurisprudence of many other states.32

        Because the power to veto is so central to the gubernatorial office, and

because nothing in the Texas Constitution or laws permits the judicial branch to

scrutinize a governor’s political decision to veto an appropriation, this is the type

of “political question” that American courts have traditionally declined to review

as nonjusticiable. See generally Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993);

Goldwater v. Carter, 444 U.S. 996 (1979); Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433

(1939); Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. 1 (1849). The U.S. Supreme Court has generally

32
         See, e.g., Homan v. Branstad, 812 N.W.2d 623, 629 (Iowa 2012); Barnes v. Secretary of
Admin., 586 N.E.2d 958, 961 (Mass. 1992) (“it is for the Legislature . . . to determine finally
which social objectives or programs are worthy of pursuit, the Governor may properly use his
veto power to accomplish legislative-type goals”) (citation omitted); State ex rel. Cason v. Bond,
495 S.W.2d 385, 392 (Mo. 1973) (“[W]hen the Governor takes part in appropriation procedures
[by vetoing legislation], he is participating in the legislative process . . . .”); State ex rel. Dickson
v. Saiz, 308 P.2d 205, 211 (N.M. 1957) (“when the Governor exercises his right of partial veto he
is exercising a quasi-legislative function”); Spokane Grain & Fuel Co. v. Lyttaker, 109 P. 316,
320 (Wash. 1910) (“In approving and disapproving laws, in the exercise of his constitutional
prerogative, the executive is a component part of the Legislature.”); State ex rel. Wis. Senate v.
Thompson, 424 N.W.2d 385, 391 (Wis. 1988) (“The partial veto power in this state was adopted .
. . to make it easier for the governor to exercise what this court has recognized to be his ‘quasi-
legislative’ role, and to be a pivotal part of the ‘omnibus’ budget bill process.”).

                                                  34
recognized the doctrine in cases with

      a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a
      coordinate political department; or a lack of judicially discoverable
      and manageable standards for resolving it; or the impossibility of
      deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for
      nonjudicial discretion; or the impossibility of a court’s undertaking
      independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due
      coordinate branches of government; or an unusual need for
      unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made; or the
      potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by
      various departments on one question.

Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217 (1962).

      State courts, including those of Texas, have had little need to articulate the

concept as thoroughly as the U.S. Supreme Court, but they also have consistently

declined to decide cases that raise political questions. This Court has held in the

context of parole decisions that the Governor’s exercise of his discretionary

constitutional authority raises political, not judicial, questions. In Ex parte Ferdin,

183 S.W.2d 466 (Tex. Crim. App. 1944), this Court refused to entertain

jurisdiction over “what is in effect an appeal from the act of the Governor in

revoking the parole,” because courts lack “power over the acts of the Governor so

long as he is within the law and the matter involved is one of his judgment and

discretion in the performance of his duty assigned to him by the Constitution . . . .

Whether or not his acts are harsh, ill advised, and arbitrary, is not a matter for this

court to decide . . . .” Id. at 467-68. See also Ex parte Pitt, 206 S.W.2d 596, 597

(Tex. Crim. App. 1947) (“The sole arbiter of the wisdom of the revocation [of the

                                          35
Governor’s conditional pardon] is the Governor.”); Ex parte Meza, 185 S.W.2d
444, 445 (Tex. Crim. App. 1945) (same).

      The Texas Constitution reposes the check on a Governor’s veto power not in

the judicial branch, but in the Legislature and the people. Should either deem veto

decisions to be erroneous or improper, the Texas Constitution provides them with

at least the possibility of a legislative or political countermeasure. The Legislature

may, if it remains in session, override a gubernatorial veto. Tex. Const. art. IV, §

14.   Legislators may refuse to cooperate with the Governor on subsequent

initiatives, including appointments.         If the Legislature concludes that the

governor’s actions are sufficiently reprehensible, the House may impeach and the

Senate may try and, upon conviction, remove the governor from office. Id. art.

XV, §§ 1-5. And voters may have an opportunity to defeat the re-election of a

governor whose policy choices they oppose, or to replace a retiring governor with

one of a different ilk.     Moreover, they can elect legislators who will join in

sufficient strength to re-enact vetoed legislation and override any further veto

attempts. These alternatives have sufficient weight to cause most governors to

exercise their veto power sparingly and deliberately.              Allowing a criminal

prosecution of a political decision where there is no allegation of bribery or

demonstrable corruption undermines the basic structure of state government.33

33
      As discussed below in connection with the Speech or Debate Clause, the Legislature can

                                            36
       Thus, Section 39.02(a)(2) is void, at least to the extent that it permits the

judicial branch in violation of Article II, Section 1, to interfere with the intended

operation of Article IV, Section 14. Just as this Court and the court of appeals

below have accepted a separation of powers claim as cognizable in pretrial habeas,

Ex parte Humphrey, supra; Ex parte Leslie, supra; and Ex parte Elliott,34 this

Court should hold that claims 3 and 4 as to Count I of Governor Perry’s application

for writ of habeas corpus are cognizable, sustain these claims on the merits, reverse

the court of appeals’ opinion and dismiss Count I.

       B.      Count I violates the Texas Speech or Debate Clause and the
               common-law doctrine of legislative immunity
       The court of appeals erred by refusing to dismiss Count I of the indictment

for violating the Texas Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause and the absolute

legislative immunity that accompanies it when the Governor is considering or

exercising his veto power.35

       Article III, Section 21 of the Texas Constitution provides that “[n]o member

shall be questioned in any other place for words spoken in debate in either House.”

This is Texas’s Speech or Debate Clause, which is similar to it analog in the

criminalize acts of political corruption, including the acceptance of a bribe or a promise of a
bribe in exchange for the exercise of a veto. Such a prosecution does not trigger any of the
separation-of-powers issues that plague this prosecution because the illegal act is the acceptance
of the bribe or the promise of the bribe, not the veto itself.
34
        See footnote 18, supra.
35
        This section addresses claims 5, 6, and 7 as to Count I (i.e., Ground for Review 1, 3 and 4).

                                                37
United States Constitution.36          On the few occasions when Texas courts have

considered the Texas clause, they have indicated that its scope is the same as the

federal clause. See Canfield v. Gresham, 17 S.W. 390, 392-93 (Tex. 1891) (citing

Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168, 204 (1880)); Bowles v. Clipp, 920 S.W.2d
752, 758 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1996, writ denied); see also Tenney v. Brandhove,

341 U.S. 367, 375 (1951) (noting common purpose of federal and state Speech or

Debate Clauses, including Texas’s).

       Under federal precedents, the Clause is “read ‘broadly to effectuate its

purposes,’” Doe v. McMillan, 412 U.S. 306, 311 (1973), which are “[t]o prevent

intimidation of legislators by the Executive and accountability before a possibly

hostile judiciary,” id. at 316 (citation and quotation omitted), and to “free[] the

legislator from executive and judicial oversight that realistically threatens to

control his conduct as a legislator.” Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 618

(1972).    Stated differently, the purpose of the principle is to secure to every

member “exemption from prosecution, for every thing said or done by him, as a

representative, in the exercise of the functions of that office.” Id. at 660 (quoting

Coffin v. Coffin, 4 Mass. 1, 27 (1808) (emphasis added)).

       The Clause originated as a response to the British Crown’s use of criminal

36
       Article I, Section 6, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution states in relevant part that “for any
Speech or Debate in either House [Senators and Representatives] shall not be questioned in any
other Place.”

                                                38
prosecution to harass political opponents in Parliament.              See United States v.

Johnson, 383 U.S. 169, 182 (1966). As noted in Johnson, “[t]here is little doubt

that the instigation of criminal charges against critical or disfavored legislators by

the executive in a judicial forum was the chief fear prompting the long struggle for

parliamentary privilege in England and, in the context of the American system of

separation of powers, is the predominant thrust of the Speech or Debate Clause.”

Id. The Clause therefore naturally implicates separation of powers considerations,

as it aims to “preserve the constitutional structure of separate, coequal, and

independent branches of government.” United States v. Helstoski, 442 U.S. 477,

491 (1979).

         Borrowing from federal analyses, Texas courts have derived from the Clause

a broad doctrine of legislative immunity. See Perry, 60 S.W.3d at 859. Not only

are oral speech and debate protected, but so are written reports and legislative

votes.     See Canfield, 17 S.W. at 392-93 (citing Kilbourn, 103 U.S. at 204);

McMillan, 412 U.S. at 311. In fact, the Clause protects all communications that

are “an integral part of the deliberative and communicative processes” involved in

a legislative act, including communications with or among aides. Gravel, 408 U.S.

at 625; see also Perry, 60 S.W.3d at 860-61.37

37
        Texas governors are not detached legislative gatekeepers, but active participants in
legislative discourse. Governors are constitutionally required to “recommend to the Legislature
such measures as [they] may deem expedient,” Tex. Const. art. IV, § 9, and to explain their

                                              39
       Legislative activity includes a Governor’s exercise of the veto power. See

Jessen, 531 S.W.2d at 598. But the Clause is sufficiently broad to protect other

government officials when they engage in “legitimate legislative activity.”

Tenney, 341 U.S. at 376; see also Perry, 60 S.W.3d at 860 (holding that the

attorney general, comptroller, and land commissioner enjoy legislative immunity

for “‘legitimate legislative functions” performed while serving on the Legislative

Redistricting Board).38        Legislative activity also includes executive actions

involving budgetary and appropriations matters. See Bogan, 523 U.S. at 55-56

(affording legislative immunity to city mayor for “introduction of a budget and

signing into law an ordinance,” a “discretionary, policymaking decision

implicating the budgetary priorities of the city” and “formally legislative, even

though he was an executive official”); Shade v. U.S. Congress, 942 F. Supp. 2d 43,

48 (D.D.C. 2013) (appropriation of funds is “a “core legislative function”).39 Any

objections to bills when exercising the veto power. Id. § 14. In short, not only does it permit
communication, the Texas Constitution requires communication between the Governor and
legislators as an integral part of the legislative process. Such communication contributes to both
sound policymaking and an informed electorate.
38
        See also Camacho v. Samaniego, 954 S.W.2d 811, 823-24 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1997,
pet. denied) (citing Hernandez v. City of Lafayette, 643 F.2d 1188, 1194 (5th Cir. 1981), for
proposition that absolute legislative immunity extended to a mayor’s veto of an ordinance passed
by a city council).
39
        To be sure, the protections of the Clause and its accompanying immunity have their
limits. They do not extend to actions that are “no part of the legislative process or function,”
even if performed by legislators. United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501, 526 (1972). For
example, a legislator may be prosecuted for bribery because “acceptance of the bribe is the
violation of the statute, not performance of the illegal promise,” making it “[un]necessary to
inquire into how [the legislator] spoke, how he debated, how he voted, or anything he did in the
chamber or in committee.” Id. at 526. See also Mutscher v. State, 514 S.W.2d 905, 914-15

                                               40
criminal prosecution based on this protected legislative activity is barred. “It is

beyond doubt that the Speech or Debate Clause protects against inquiry into acts

that occur in the regular course of the legislative process and into the motivation

for those acts.” United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501, 525 (1972). Thus,

legislative acts may not themselves be criminalized.                See United States v.

Helstoski, 442 U.S. at 488.        Nor may a prosecution proceed if it necessarily

depends upon evidence of legislative acts or the motives for them. See Johnson,
383 U.S. at 184-85.        In fact, evidence of a legislative act may not even be

introduced at trial in an otherwise permissible prosecution. Helstoski, 442 U.S. at

487-88. This is because the courts have recognized that the “level of intimidation

against a local legislator arising from the threat of a criminal proceeding is at least

as great as the threat from a civil suit,” so that legislative immunity “should be

extended to criminal proceedings.” State v. Holton, 997 A.2d 828, 845, 856 (Md.

Ct. Spec. App. 2010), aff’d, 24 A.3d 678 (Md. 2011) (quotations and citation

omitted). See also McMillan, 412 U.S. 306, 312-13 (1973) (“Congressmen . . . are

immune from liability for their actions within the ‘legislative sphere’ even though

their conduct, if performed in other than legislative contexts, would in itself be

unconstitutional or otherwise contrary to criminal or civil statutes.” (citation

(Tex. Crim. App. 1974) (affirming House Speaker’s conviction for bribery and upholding the
bribery statute because “[t]aking a bribe is, obviously, no part of the legislative process or
function; it is not, a legislative act” (quoting Brewster, 408 U.S. 527)).

                                             41
omitted)).     Indeed, officials cannot even be required to testify about their

legislative activities, regardless of the context in which their testimony is sought.

Perry, 60 S.W.3d at 858, 861.40

       This protection is not eviscerated even by allegations of a bad motive. A

charge that legislative conduct was “improperly motivated” is “precisely what the

Speech or Debate Clause generally forecloses from executive and judicial inquiry.”

Johnson, 383 U.S. at 180. Otherwise, immunity would be held hostage to “a

conclusion of the pleader” or “a jury’s speculation as to motives.” Bogan, 523
U.S. at 54 (observing that the Court had applied immunity even when a legislator

“singled out the plaintiff for investigation in order to intimidate and silence the

plaintiff and deter and prevent him from effectively exercising his constitutional

40
        Other states provide similar protection in civil, criminal, and quasi-criminal matters. See,
e.g., State v. Dankworth, 672 P.2d 148, 151 (Alaska Ct. App. 1983) (even in a criminal case,
“[o]nce it is determined that [a] legislative function . . . was apparently being performed, the
propriety and the motivation for the action taken, as well as the detail of the acts performed, are
immune from judicial inquiry”) (quoting United States v. Dowdy, 479 F.2d 213, 226 (4th Cir.
1973)); D’Amato v. Superior Court, 167 Cal. App. 4th 861 (2008) (“The district attorney
acknowledges the principles of legislative immunity . . . but contends immunity applies only to
civil suits, and does not extend to criminal prosecutions. We disagree.”); State v. Neufeld, 926
P.2d 1325, 1337 (Kan. 1996) (“Congressmen . . . are immune from liability for their actions
within the legislative sphere . . . even though their conduct, if performed in other than legislative
contexts, would in itself be unconstitutional or otherwise contrary to criminal or civil statutes.”
(internal quotation marks omitted)); Holton, 997 A.2d at 851 (“we hold that, as a matter of
common law, local legislators may invoke that same privilege in a criminal prosecution”); Irons
v. R.I. Ethics Comm’n, 973 A.2d 1124, 1131 (R.I. 2009) (“as long as [a legislator’s] challenged
actions, stripped of all considerations of intent and motive, were legislative in character, the
doctrine of absolute legislative immunity protects them from such claims”—there, an ethics
agency enforcement action). Furthermore, several federal circuits have held that governors are
protected by absolute legislative immunity for their legislative acts. See State Emps. Bargaining
Agent Coal. v. Rowland, 494 F.3d 71, 91-92 (2d Cir. 2007); Baraka v. McGreevey, 481 F.3d 187,
196-97 (3d Cir. 2007); Torres Rivera v. Calderon Serra, 412 F.3d 205, 212-14 (1st Cir. 2005);

                                                42
rights” (citing Tenney, 341 U.S. at 377)). “[I]t is ‘not consonant with our scheme

of government for a court to inquire into the motives of legislators.’” Perry, 60
S.W.3d at 860 (quoting Bogan, 523 U.S. at 55). Simply put, “[t]he claim of an

unworthy purpose does not destroy the privilege.” Tenney, 341 U.S. at 377. The

remedy for those who disagree with a veto, no matter how earnestly, is political,

not judicial.41

       For these reasons, the courts will foreclose attempts to convert inescapably

political disputes into criminal complaints.            A number of federal cases have

required dismissal of grand-jury indictments premised on privileged Speech or

Debate materials, thus barring a trial that would require the government to

introduce evidence of privileged Speech or Debate materials. For example, in

United States v. Swindall, 971 F.2d 1531 (11th Cir. 1992), a former congressman

was prosecuted for lying to the grand jury about his knowledge of various money-

laundering statutes. Id. at 1535-37. To prove his knowledge, the prosecution

introduced evidence before the grand jury and at trial about the congressman’s

activities in Congress, including his activity on a banking committee. Id. at 1539-

Women’s Emergency Network v. Bush, 323 F.3d 937, 950 (11th Cir. 2003).
41
        In Bogan, the Supreme Court held that the acts of introducing, voting for, and signing an
ordinance eliminating the government office held by a health department administrator, when
“stripped of all considerations of intent and motive,” were in fact “legislative” because the
“ordinance reflected a discretionary, policymaking decision implicating the budgetary priorities
of the city.” 523 U.S. at 55. Governor Perry’s decision to veto an item of appropriation and any
announcement by his staff of his intent most certainly reflects a similar “discretionary,
policymaking decision implicating the budgetary priorities” of Texas.

                                               43
40. The court of appeals reversed the congressman’s conviction and held that the

prosecution violated the Speech or Debate Clause for two reasons: (1) “the

AUSA[] question[ed] [the congressman] before the grand jury about his committee

memberships” in an effort to show his knowledge of money-laundering statutes,

and (2) “reference [was] made to [the congressman’s] committee memberships

both in the grand jury proceedings and at trial.” Id. at 1543. The court held that

“the remedy for the violations of the privilege is dismissal of the affected counts.”

Id. See also Johnson, 383 U.S. at 185 (holding that Speech or Debate material was

improperly presented to the grand jury and ordering a new trial “purged of

elements offensive to the Speech or Debate Clause”); Brewster, 408 U.S. at 527

(holding that, only because a conviction in that case could be sustained without

“inquir[y] into the [legislative] act or its motivation,” could an indictment of a

congressman which referred to legislative acts stand, as “[t]o make a prima facie

case under this indictment, the Government need not show any act of [Brewster]

subsequent to the corrupt promise for payment,” i.e., a bribe).42

       In Helstoski v. Meanor, 442 U.S. at 506-08, the Supreme Court followed the

reasoning of Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651 (1977) and allowed immediate

42
       Dismissing an indictment that violates the federal Speech or Debate Clause is also
supported by United States v. Kolter, 71 F.3d 425 (D.C. Cir. 1995); United States v.
Rostenkowski, 59 F.3d 1291 (D.C. Cir. 1995); United States v. Zielezinski, 740 F.2d 727 (9th Cir.
1984); United States v. Beery, 678 F.2d 856 (10th Cir. 1982); and United States v. Renzi, 686 F.
Supp. 2d 956 (D. Ariz. 2010).

                                               44
interlocutory appeal in a criminal case to assert the immunity conferred by the

Speech or Debate Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Critical to the holding was the

Supreme Court’s conclusion that the Speech or Debate Clause protects legislators

‘“not only from the consequences of litigation’s results but also from the burden of

defending themselves,’” id. at 508 (quoting Dombrowski v. Eastland, 387 U.S. at

85), which right would have been lost if review did not occur prior to a trial. Just as

this Court followed Supreme Court precedent on Double Jeopardy in permitting

pretrial habeas review, Ex parte Robinson, 641 S.W.2d at 554-55 (following Abney

v. United States, 431 U.S. 651 (1977)), so now it should follow Helstoski in this

case.43

       C.      The abuse of official capacity statute is unconstitutionally vague
               as applied to the veto alleged on the face of the indictment
       The court of appeals further erred by refusing to dismiss Count I of the

indictment because Section 39.02(a)(2) is unconstitutionally vague. CR46-48.44

       The Abuse of Official Capacity statute, Tex. Penal Code § 39.02(a)(2),45 is

43
        The underlying basis of Abney was that because the Fifth Amendment right not to be put
in jeopardy a second time involved “a right not to be tried” and “to “enjoy the full protection of
the Clause,” the claim “must be reviewable before that subsequent exposure occurs.” United
States v. Hollywood Motor Car Co., 458 U.S. 263, 266 (1982) (quoting Abney, 431 U.S. at 662).
The same principles obviously apply here.
44
        This section addresses claims 1 and 2 as to Count I (i.e., Grounds for Review 1 and 4).
45
        In pertinent part, Abuse of Official Capacity is defined as follows: “A public servant
commits an offense if, with intent to obtain a benefit or with intent to harm or defraud another,
he intentionally or knowingly . . . misuses government property, services, personnel, or any other
thing of value belonging to the government that has come into the public servant’s custody or
possession by virtue of the public servant’s office or employment.” Tex. Penal Code §

                                               45
admittedly a tightly-worded provision with graduated penalties for escalating

levels of wrongdoing. But it has no discernible relationship to any conduct alleged

in the indictment against Governor Perry. Hence, this statute either does not apply

to Governor Perry’s alleged conduct at all or is unconstitutionally vague as applied

to the facts alleged on the face of the indictment. In either case, Count I should be

dismissed.

       Prosecution of Governor Perry under Section 39.02(a)(2) violates all three

related manifestations of the fair-warning requirement.       See United States v.

Lanier, 520 U.S. 259, 266 (1997). First, the vagueness doctrine would be violated

because there was no fair warning that Governor Perry’s act of vetoing funding for

the PIU would violate that section. Second, the rule of lenity would be violated by

an interpretation of the statute bringing Governor Perry’s veto within the umbrella

of coverage. Third, the prosecution involves an entirely novel construction of

these criminal statutes which neither the text of the statutes nor any prior judicial

decision has fairly disclosed to be within their scope.

       This vagueness is evident in several respects. First, neither Governor Perry

nor any other governor could have had fair notice that he was “misus[ing]

government property” by vetoing a line-item appropriation, the effect of which was

to keep funds in the State Treasury rather than allowing funds to be transferred to

39.02(a)(2).

                                          46
Lehmberg’s office after September 1, 2013. Second, Governor Perry did not have

fair notice that he could somehow have “custody or possession” of all the State

funds proposed to be expended in an appropriations bill merely “by virtue of [his]

office or employment” as governor. As this Court can judicially notice, the funds

to be disbursed under the two-year budget commencing September 1, 2013, would

not have been collected by that date, let alone by June 14, 2013, the date of the

misconduct alleged in Count I of the indictment, because Texas uses a pay-as-you-

go system of raising revenue for appropriations.46       In essence, the special

prosecutor’s interpretation of Section 39.02(a)(2) would turn the Rule of Lenity—

that principle that unclear criminal statutes should be construed in favor of the

defendant, Cuellar v. State, 70 S.W.3d 815, 819 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002)—on

its head.

46
      See footnote 32, supra.

                                       47
                                Prayer for Relief
      WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Governor Perry respectfully

prays that this Court reverse the court of appeals’ judgment holding that Governor

Perry’s constitutional claims are not cognizable, find Section 39.02(a)(2)

unconstitutional, and dismiss Count I.

                                         Respectfully submitted,

THE BUZBEE LAW FIRM                      BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.

/s/ Anthony G. Buzbee                    /s/ Thomas R. Phillips
Anthony G. Buzbee                        Thomas R. Phillips
State Bar No. 24001820                   State Bar No. 00000102
JPMorgan Chase Tower                     98 San Jacinto Blvd., Suite 1500
600 Travis Street, Suite 7300            Austin, Texas 78701-4078
Houston, Texas 77002                     tom.phillips@bakerbotts.com
Tbuzbee@txattorneys.com                  Telephone: 512-322-2565
Telephone: 713-223-5393                  Facsimile: 512-322-8363
Facsimile: 713-223-5909

BOTSFORD & ROARK
/s/ David L. Botsford
David L. Botsford
State Bar No. 02687950
1307 West Ave.
Austin, Texas 78701
dbotsford@aol.com
Telephone: 512-479-8030
Facsimile: 512-479-8040

                                          48
                           Certificate of Compliance
      I hereby certify that this document contains 9,569 words in the portions of
the document that are subject to the word limits of Texas Rule of Appellate
Procedure 9.4(i), as measured by the undersigned’s word-processing software.

                                     /s/ David L. Botsford
                                     David L. Botsford

                             Certificate of Service
       This is to certify that a true and complete copy of this document has been
electronically emailed to Lisa McMinn, State Prosecuting Attorney, Michael
McCrum, Attorney Pro Tem, and to Mr. David Gonzalez, Assistant Attorney Pro
Tem on the same date it was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court of
Criminal Appeals.

                                     /s/ David L. Botsford
                                     David L. Botsford

                                       49
                                      TAB 1

                       Nine Claims Challenging Count I

1.   Section 39.02(a)(2) [of the Texas Penal Code] violates the Fifth and
     Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States as applied
     because its prohibitions of “misuse” of “government property . . . that has
     come into the [Governor’s] custody or possession” is unconstitutionally
     vague as a matter of law if extended to a mere gubernatorial veto of any
     appropriation of State funds.

2.   Section 39.02(a)(2) violates Article I, Sections 10 and 19 of the Texas
     Constitution as applied because its prohibition of “misuse” of “government
     property . . . that has come into the [Governor’s] custody or possession” is
     unconstitutionally vague as a matter of law if extended to a mere
     gubernatorial veto of any appropriation of State funds.

3.   Section 39.02(a)(2) is unconstitutional as applied because it infringes upon
     the Governor’s absolute constitutional right and duty to approve or
     disapprove “items of appropriation” under Article IV, Section 14 of the
     Texas Constitution.

4.   Section 39.02(a)(2) is unconstitutional as applied because it violates the
     separation of powers between the various departments of government that is
     guaranteed to the People by Article II, Section 1 of the Texas Constitution.

5.   Because a governor acts in a constitutionally-prescribed legislative capacity
     in vetoing legislation, Section 39.02(a)(2) is unconstitutional as applied
     because it violates the protection afforded by the Speech and Debate Clause
     of Article III, Section 21 of the Texas Constitution.

6.   Because the Governor was acting in a legislative capacity in vetoing the
     appropriation at issue, Count I of the indictment is void because it is
     necessarily based on evidence privileged by the Speech and Debate Clause
     of Article III, Section 21 of the Texas Constitution.

7.   Because the Governor was acting in a legislative capacity in vetoing the
     appropriation at issue, trial on Count I of the indictment is barred as a matter
     of law because the State could only sustain its burden, if at all, by
     introducing evidence privileged by the Speech and Debate Clause of Article
     III, Section 21 of [t]he Texas Constitution.

                                        50
8.   Section 39.02(a)(2) is unconstitutional as applied because Governor Perry
     had the right to do any and all acts of which he is charged in the exercise of
     his rights under the Free Speech guarantee of the First Amendment to the
     Constitution of the United States.

9.   Section 39.02(a)(2) is unconstitutional as applied because Governor Perry
     had the right to do any and all acts of which he is charged in the exercise of
     his rights under the Free Speech guarantee of Article I, Section 8 of the
     Texas Constitution.

                                       51