Court Opinion

ID: 4054449
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-09-29 05:24:38.099216+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:31:27.408625
License: Public Domain

WR-80,923-02
                                                            COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
                                                                            AUSTIN, TEXAS
                                                          Transmitted 4/21/2015 10:49:03 AM
                                                            Accepted 4/21/2015 11:20:35 AM
               IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS                              ABEL ACOSTA
                                                                                     CLERK
                         AUSTIN, TEXAS
                                                              RECEIVED
                                                       COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
                                                              4/21/2015
                                )     Cause No.          ABEL ACOSTA, CLERK
In re                           )     w0e-0040e-Y(A)
Roderick Harris,                )
            RELATOR             )
                                )
                                )

        EMERGENCY APPLICATIOI\ FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION;
                   REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIOI{

                         This is a Capital Case
                   Evidentiary Hearing: May 18,2015

                             BRAD D. LEVENSON (No. 240734rt)
                             Director, Offrce of Capital Writs
                             (E-Mail : Brad.Levenson@ocw.texas. gov)
                             ROBERT ROMIG (No. 240605 17)
                             (E-Mail: Robert.Romig@ocw.texas.gov)
                             JEREMY SCHEPERS (No. 24084578)
                             (E-Mail : Jeremy.Schepers@ocw.texas.gov)
                             Post-Conviction Attorneys
                             Office of Capital Writs
                             1700 North Congress Avenue, Suite 460
                             Austin, Texas 7870I
                             (st2) 463-8600
                             (s12) 463-8se0 (fax)

                             Attorneys for Relator
                  IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL

Relator
Roderick Harris
TDCJ # 99957 7
TDCJ Polunsþ [Jnit
3872 FM 350 South
Livingston, Texas 7735 |

Attorneys for Relator
Office of Capital Writs
Brad D. Levenson
Robert Romig
Jeremy Schepers
1700 North Congress Avenue
Suite 460
Austin, Texas 78701

Respondent
Honorabl e Elizab eth Frizel I
Judge, Criminal District Court No. 7
Frank Crowley Courts Building
133 N. Riverfront Boulevard
Lock Box 54
Dallas, TX 75207

Real Parties in Interest
Dallas County District Attorney's Office
Shelly Yeatts
Frank Crowley Courts Building
133 N. Riverfront Boulevard
Lock Box 19
Dallas, TX 7 5207

                                           1t
                              TABLE OF'CONTENTS

APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF' PROHIBITION                                          1

STATEMENT OF THE CASE                                                         1

                                                                              a
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION..........                                           J

ISSUES PRESENTED                                                              4

STATEME,NT OF FACTS                                                           4

ARGUMENT                                                                      5

  A.   Standard of Review                                                     5

  B. Harris Has a Clear Right to Relief, as the State Has No Right Under Texas
  Law to Demand Discovery of a Defendant's Trial File Through Post-
  Conviction Counsel ..............                                      ......6

  C. Harris Has No Other Adequate Remedy at Law Other Than Seeking This
  Writ of Prohibition                                           ..........8

PRAYER FOR RELIEF                                                             9

EXHIBITS
     Exhibit A:     Trial Court Order
     Exhibit B:     State's Motion for Disclosure of Trial File
     Exhibit C:     Harris's Response to State's Motion

                                          111
                          TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

State Cases
Aranda v. District Clerk,207 S.W.3d 785 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006)....           7
Arbelaez v. State,775 So.2d 909 (Fla. 2000)                                  7
Coffee v. Wainwright, 172 So. 2d 851 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1965)               7
                                                                             a
Ex parte Davts,947 S.W.zd216 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996)......                    J
                                                                             a
Ex parte Moreno,245 S.\M.3d 419 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008)                       J
                                                                             a
Ex parte Reed,271 S.W.3d 698 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008)                          J
In re McCann,422 S.W.3d 701 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013)                    4,5,   8
Neveuv. Culver, 105 S.W.3d 641 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003).                    6
Simonv. Levario, 306 S.W.3d 318 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009)                  5 6
State ex rel. Wade v. Mays,689 S.W.2d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985)             5
 l4/est v. solito,563 S.W.zd240 (Tex. 1978)                                  6

Statutes
Texas Constitution, Art. V., $5                                              -J
Other Authority
ABA, Standing Comm. on Ethics & Prof'l Responsíbilíty, Formal Opinion 10-456
                                                                             7

                                        1V
                  APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION;
                              REQUEST FOR INJUCTION
        Relator Roderick Harris ("Harris") has been ordered by Judge Elizabeth
Frizell, presiding judge of the Criminal District Court No. 7 in Dallas County, to
turn over the files belonging to his trial defense counsel to the Dallas County
District Attorney's Office (the "State") before May 18, 2015. (Ex. A [Trial Court
Order].) Harris, through his attorneys the Office of Capital Writs ("OCW"),
requests this Court issue an emergency stay of Judge Frizell's order anda writ of
prohibition instructing Judge Frizell to withdraw that order.
        Harris is currently pursuing relief from a capttal conviction and sentence of
death, having filed an application for writ of habeas corpus within the meaning       of
Article      11.071   of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Harris has raised claims of
ineffective assistance of trial counsel as grounds for that relief. The State filed an
answer and the convicting court ordered an evidentiary hearing, which is scheduled

to commence May 18,2015. Upon a motion by the State, the convicting court
ordered the OCW to make available defense counsel's files to the State prior to the

commencement of the hearing. As there is no justification under Texas law for
post-conviction counsel to have to provide the State with such broad discovery,
and because Harris has no other adequate remedy at Iaw, a       writ of prohibition   is

necessary.

                                             I.
                              STATEMENT OF THE CASE
        Harris was convicted and sentenced to death in Criminal District Court No. 7
in Dallas County on May 21,2012. (66 RR at 107;2 CR at709.)1 Pursuant to the
Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 11.071, Section 2(b), the convicting court

I   306 S.W.3d 318,321 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). This standard is satisfied                if   the

applicant can show he has a "çIeat right to the relief sought . . . when the facts and
circumstances dictate but one rational decision."        Id.   In In re McCann, this Court
granted mandamus relief during the pendency of a capital post-conviction habeas
proceeding, finding that a "clear right to   relief'   can be met even   if the issue is one
of first-impression. 422 S.W.3d at 704. The Court noted that it "may grant relief
in a mandamus case based on a well-settled, but rarely litigated point of law." Id.
                                             5
       Second, an applicant must show that there is no other adequate remedy at
law to redress his harm. Símon,306 S.W.3d at 320; see also Neveu v. Culver, 105
S.W.3d   64t, 643 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (finding no adequate           remedy at law
where there was no procedural mechanism to appeal an adverse ruling regarding
appointment of counsel).
   B. Harris Has a Clear Right to Relief, as the State Has No Right Under
      Texas Law to Demand I)iscovery of a Defendant's Trial FileThrough
       Post-Conviction Counsel
       The key dispute between Harris and the State is whether the raising of an
ineffective assistance of counsel claim bestows upon the State a discovery tool
giving them access to defense counsel's files. Harris maintains that the raising of
such   a claim solely permits trial counsel to use the otherwise              privileged

information to defend against ineffective assistance of counsel claims, but does not
give the State the same access. See West v. Solito,563 S.W.zd 240,245 n.3 (Tex.
1978). While trial counsel is placed in a position to be exempted from the
attorney-client privilege when defending their performance, nothing in Texas law
states that the underlying work product and other files      of counsel are no longer
confidential and are subject to discovery by the State. The State has failed to cite
any binding authority for the proposition that   it is "entitled" to access Harris's trial
files. (Ex. B at 10 fState's Motion],) Nowhere in the State's Motion is there            a

case, statute, or evidentiary rule referenced that allows the State the access to trial

counsel's files that it currently seeks.
       In its Motion, the State cites a long string of cases that stand for the
proposition that raising an ineffective assistance of counsel claim operates as          a

waiver of the attorney-client privilege, to the extent that trial counsel seeks to use
that information to defend themselves. (Ex. B at 3-6 [State's Motion].) Harris
does not dispute this   fact. However, none of these cases stand for the proposition

                                           6
that the State is entitled to access Harris's trial counsel files via post-conviction
counsel.3 This inability to provide binding authority is   telling-the   State seeks to

take a narrow and limited waiver allowing trial counsel the ability to defend
themselves against    an ineffective   assistance   of counsel claim into a broad
discovery tool for the State.
       Disclosure of the trial file to the State is inappropriate and unnecessary to
litigate the claims of ineffective assistance in the case. Trial counsel have stated
they   will testifli at the evidentiary   hearing and intend    to review the files
beforehand. Counsel can reasonably be expected to disclose the information they
believe necessary to defend their perfotmance at that hearing. See þlander           v.

State,   l0l S.W.3d 107, 111 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (noting that "trial counsel
should ordinarily be afforded an opportunity to explain his actions before being
denounced as ineffective"). Indeed, persuasive authority that has discussed this
topic seemingly presumes that this information will be in the possession of trial
counsel and disclosed by them. See ABA Standing Comm. on Ethics               & Prof'l
ResponsibíliQ, Formal Opinìon 10-456, at 5 (2010) (noting that while lawyers may
disclose information "reasonably necessary" to resolve ineffectiveness claims, it is

3
  The only case in the State's Motion that specifîcally contemplates the State being
permitted to access trial counsel's files is Arbelaez v. State, 775 So.2d 909,917
(Fla. 2000). However, this case is a poor analogy to the current scenario, as
Florida treats writs of habeas corpus as civil matters, whereas in Texas writs of
habeas corpus are considered criminal in nature. Compare Coffee v. Wainwright,
172 So. 2d 851, 852 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1965) (noting that "this type of proceeding
is civil and not criminal in nature."), with Aranda v, District Clerk,207 S.W.3d
785,786 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (noting that "the proceeding is criminal, not civil,
in nature.") (citing Ex parte Davis,542 S.W.2d 192, 198 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976).
Civil actions traditionally have much broader discovery rights than criminal
proceedings, limiting any persuasive force that Florida's provisions may have
regarding the State's request.
                                           7
"highly unlikely that a disclosure in response to a prosecution request, prior to                  a

court-supervised response by way of testimony or otherwise,           will   be justif,rable.").

      The State is not trial counsel's representative for the purpose of Harris's
current litigation. How trial counsel chooses to defend themselves from these
claims, and to what extent the limited waiver of privileged information                  will   be

effectuated, is a decision for trial counsel, not the State, to make. Further, the State
may rely on the record of trial and any other non-confidential materials that reflect
the performance of trial counsel. Finally, the burden is on Harris to prove
ineffective assistance of his trial counsel. To do so, he must provide information
about counsel's performance sufficient to overcome the presumption that counsel
acted effectively. See Goodspeed v. State,187 S.W.3d 390, 392 (Tex. Crim. App.

2005) ("A Strickland claim must be 'firmly founded in the record' and'the record
must affirmatively demonstrate' the meritorious nature of the claim."); Jackson                    v.

state, 877 S.W.2d 7 68,   77   1 (T ex.   Crim. App. 199 4).
      For these reasons, the trial court erred in granting the State's motion and
creating a right to discovery where none exists under Texas            law. As such, Harris
has shown a clear right to relief under the law, necessitating a       writ of prohibition.
   C. Harris Has No Other Adequate Remedy at Law Other Than Seeking
      This Writ of Prohibition
       Should the trial court's order stand, Harris             will be required to disclose
Harris's trial file to the State. Because there will be no practical way to undo the
disclosure   of this information, later proceedings before this Court on Harris's
Application will be inadequate to redress the trial court's error. As such, Harris
can demonstrate there is no other adequate remedy at law to appeal the decision                    of
the trial court outside of this application for writ of prohibition. See In re McCann,

422 S.W.3d at 710-7ll ("Moreover, McCann has no adequate remedy at law
because, although McCann could seek relief from the order of contempt through an

                                                  8
application for writ of habeas corpus, that relief would not resolve the underlying
issue of the trial judge's order compelling McCann to relinquish Turner's trial
file.").
                                             VT.

                                 PRAYER FOR RELTEF
           For the foregoing reasons, Harris respectfully requests this Court issue a writ
of prohibition instructing the convicting court to withdraw its order requiring        the

disclosure of Harris's trial file to the State. Alternately, Harris requests this Court
issue a temporary order enjoining the convicting court from enforcing its order
until this Court has had time to rule on the instant Emergency Application.

                                                   Respectfully submitted,

DATED: April 21,2015                               B                Cè
                                                                             t
                                                   Brad D. Levenson
                                                   Director, Office of Capital Writs

                                                   Robert Romig

                                                   J     y Schepers

                                                   Post-Conviction Attorneys
                                                   Office of Capital Writs

                                               9
                         CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, declare and certify that I have served the foregoing Emergency
Application for Writ of Prohibition to:

Court of Criminal Appeals                    Honorable Judge Elizabeth Frizell
P.O. Box 112308                              Criminal District Court No. 7
Austin, Texas 787II                          133 N. Riverfront Blvd.
                                             Lock Box 54
                                             Dallas, Texas 75207
Dallas County District Attomey
c/o Shelly Yeatts
133 N. Riverfront Blvd.
Lock Box 19
Dallas, Texas 75207

Roderick Harris
TDCJ # 999s7t
TDCJ Polunsky Unit
3872 FM 350 South
Livingston, Texas 77351

      This certification is executed on April2I,2015, at Austin, Texas.

      I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the
best of my knowledge.

                                                                 i

                                                     BRAD D. LE