EX PARTE JOS ERNESTO MEDELL N, (1) Applicant (Original)

Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion     Close This Window

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-50,191-03

EX PARTE JOSÉ ERNESTO MEDELLÍN, (1) Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN ORIGINAL WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, AND MOTION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION FROM CAUSE NO. 675430

IN THE 339TH DISTRICT COURT

HARRIS COUNTY

Per Curiam. Price, J., filed a concurring statement in which Cochran and Holcomb, JJ., joined, except for Part V; Cochran, J., filed a concurring statement in which Holcomb, J., joined; Meyers, J., filed a dissenting statement.

O R D E R

We have before us a subsequent application for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to the provisions of Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 11.071, § 5, a motion in the alternative for leave to file the application as an original writ of habeas corpus, and a motion for stay of execution.

On September 16, 1994, a jury found applicant guilty of the offense of capital murder. The jury answered the special issues submitted pursuant to Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 37.071, and the trial court, accordingly, set applicant's punishment at death. This Court affirmed applicant's conviction and sentence on direct appeal. Medellin v. State, No. AP-71,997 (Tex. Crim. App. Mar. 19, 1997) (not designated for publication). Applicant timely filed in the convicting court his initial post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus in which he raised a claim alleging the violation of his rights under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention. The convicting court recommended that we deny this claim because applicant: (1) had failed to comply with the well-settled Texas contemporaneous-objection rule at trial; and (2) had no individually enforceable right to raise a claim, in a state criminal trial, regarding the Vienna Convention's consular access provisions. We adopted the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law and denied habeas relief. Ex parte Medellin, No. WR-50,191-01 (Tex Crim. App. Oct. 3, 2001)(not designated for publication). Applicant then filed the same claim in federal district court and was ultimately denied relief. Medellin v. Cockrell, Civ. No. H-01-4078 (S.D. Tex. April 17, 2003).

On March 31, 2004, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a decision in Case Concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Avena), 2004 I.C.J. No. 128 (March 31, 2004). The ICJ held that (1) the Vienna Convention guaranteed individually enforceable rights; (2) the United States must "provide, by means of its own choosing, review and reconsideration of the convictions and sentences of the [specified] Mexican nationals"; and (3) the United States must determine whether the violations "caused actual prejudice" to those defendants, without allowing American procedural default rules or laws to bar such review. Id. at 121-22, 153. In response to the opinion, President Bush issued a memorandum in which he stated that the United States would discharge its obligations under the Avena judgment by having State courts give effect to the ICJ decision in accordance with general principles of comity. Arguing that the ICJ opinion and the presidential memo were new legal and factual bases for his Vienna Convention claim, applicant filed a subsequent application for writ of habeas corpus with the trial court. Reviewing the claim under Article 11.071, § 5, this Court filed and set applicant's case and ordered briefing. Ex parte Medellin, 206 S.W.3d 584 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). After briefing, argument, and an exhaustive analysis, this Court determined that neither the Avena decision nor the presidential memorandum constituted new legal or factual bases and dismissed the application. Ex parte Medellin, 223 S.W.3d 315, 352 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

On this, his second subsequent application for writ of habeas corpus, and in his motion for a stay of execution, applicant again argues that new developments require us to provide him with judicial review and reconsideration of his Vienna Convention claim under Avena. (2) Applicant argues that these new developments consist of: (1) the United States Supreme Court's decision in Medellin v. Texas, 552 U.S. (2008), affirming and clarifying this Court's opinion in applicant's case; (2) the fact that a bill has been introduced in the United States House of Representatives which, if passed into law, would grant applicant a right to the judicial process required by Avena; (3) the indication by a Texas Senator that he will introduce similar legislation in the Texas Legislature in the 2009 session; and (4) the fact that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, allegedly the "only body to have reviewed all of the evidence pertaining to [applicant's] Vienna Convention violation under the standard required by the ICJ," on July 24, 2008, issued its preliminary findings concluding that applicant was prejudiced by the violation of his Vienna Convention rights. Application p. 2.

We have reviewed applicant's second subsequent application and find that it does not meet the dictates of Article 11.071, § 5, and should be dismissed. Art. 11.071, § 5(a). Applicant's motion in the alternative for leave to file the application as an original writ of habeas corpus is denied as is his motion for stay of execution.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2008.

Publish

1. Applicant filed the pleadings in this case under the name "Jos© Ernesto Medell­n Rojas." However, all of the prior papers filed in this Court, the papers filed in the United States Supreme Court, and documents at the Texas Department of Criminal Justice were entered under the name "Jos© Ernesto Medell­n." For consistency, we will continue to use the name "Jos© Ernesto Medell­n."

2. Applicant does not phrase his claims specifically in terms of the Vienna Convention. However, the Vienna Convention and the Avena judgment are the underlying bases of the claims raised.