Robbins, Ex Parte Neal Hampton ( 2015 )

AP-
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
April 27, 2015 Transmitted 4/24/2015 4:18:22 PM
Accepted 4/27/2015 9:07:36 AM
NO. AP-76,464 ABEL ACOSTA
CLERK
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
AT AUSTIN, TEXAS
EX PARTE NEAL HAMPTON ROBBINS, Applicant
IN THE 410TH DISTRICT COURT
OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, TEXAS
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus
from the 410th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas
No. 98-06-00750-CR-A
APPLICANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION ON COURT’S OWN MOTION
TO THE JUDGES OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS:
NEAL HAMPTON ROBBINS, Applicant, by Counsel, BRIAN WICE,
pursuant to TEX.R.APP.P. 79(2)(d), files this Supplemental Motion for
Reconsideration on this Court’s Own Motion and in support thereof shows
this Court the following:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The statement of the case, its procedural history, and disposition
may be found in Ex parte
parte Robbins,
Robbins ___ S.W.3d ___ 2014 WL 6751684(Tex.Crim.App. Nov. 26, 2014). Simply put, this Court granted Applicant
habeas corpus relief in a 5-4 decision, with six different members of this
1A
Court issuing separate opinions. Two days before its motion for rehearing
was due, the State filed a request for an extension asking for an additional
30 days to do so. Less than 24 hours after Applicant’s motion objecting to
the State’s request was filed, this Court, over the dissents of Judges Price,
Johnson, Cochran and Alcala, gave the State until December 18, 2014 to
file its motion for rehearing, noting that no additional extensions would
be entertained. The State’s motion has been pending ever since.1
JURISDICTION
This Court, on its own initiative, may reconsider a prior denial of
habeas corpus relief. Ex parte Moussazadeh,
Moussazadeh 361 S.W.3d 684, 687
(Tex.Crim.App. 2012).
GROUND FOR RECONSIDERATION ON THIS COURT’S OWN MOTION
Applicant is entitled to habeas corpus relief
because he was denied a fundamentally fair trial
with an accurate result.
ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES
On January 1, 2015, three new members of this Court took their
1
By contrast, two motions for rehearing filed by the State in cases which it lost in late 2014
were acted on with relative alacrity. In Cameron v. State, PD-1427-13, a 6-3 decision, the State’s
motion for rehearing was filed on November 7, 2014 and granted on January 28, 2015. And, in State
v. Villarreal, PD-0306-14, a 5-4 decision, the State’s amended motion for rehearing was filed on
December 19, 2014 and granted on February 25, 2015.
2
seats, replacing the three members of the Court, constituting 3/5 of the
majority in Robbins II.
II The three new members have undoubtedly poured
over the briefs of the parties, the many amicus briefs filed on Applicant’s
behalf, the oral argument recording, the State’s motion for rehearing, and
the responses thereto filed by Applicant and his amicus. But it is
certainly possible that the newest members may not have realized that a
motion for reconsideration of Robbins I on this Court’s own motion was
filed on November 4, 2013, one never acted on given the Court’s grant of
relief in Robbins II.
II
This motion is filed to not only bring Applicant’s original motion for
reconsideration on its own motion to the attention of the Court, but to
provide it with both the opportunity and the vehicle for it to honor what
four judges in Robbins I and five judges in Robbins II have made clear:
“[I]f the criminal justice system – even when its
procedures were fairly followed – reaches a
patently inaccurate result ... the judicial system
has an obligation to set things straight. Our
criminal justice system makes two promises to its
citizens: a fundamentally fair trial and an accurate
result. If either of those two promises are not met,
the criminal justice system itself falls into
disrepute and will eventually be disregarded.”
Thompson 153 S.W.3d 420, 421 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005)(Cochran,
Ex parte Thompson,
3
J., joined by Holcomb, J., concurring); see also Ex parte Henderson,
Henderson 384
S.W.3d at 850 (Cochran, J., concurring)(“I agree that applicant did not
receive a fundamentally fair trial based upon reliable scientific
evidence.”). Because Applicant’s trial was not fair and did not produce a
reliable result, the Court, three members of which did not participate in
either Robbins I or Robbins II,
II should now reconsider its earlier denial of
relief in Robbins I and conclude that Applicant is entitled to a new trial.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Applicant prays that this Court grant this motion for reconsideration
on its own motion in Robbins I in the event it grants rehearing in Robbins
II,
II grant the relief herein requested, and, for all the reasons previously
stated, deny the State’s motion for rehearing in Robbins II.
II
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
/s/ Brian W. Wice
______________________________
BRIAN W. WICE
440 Louisiana Suite 900
Houston, Texas 77002-1635
(713) 524-9922 PHONE
(713) 236-7768 FAX
Bar No. 21417800
COUNSEL FOR APPLICANT
Neal Hampton Robbins
4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Pursuant to TEX.R.APP.P.
.P 9.5(d), this document was served Bill
Delmore of the Montgomery County District Attorney’s Office, 301 North
Thompson, Conroe, Texas, 77301, and on State Prosecuting Attorney Lisa
McMinn, P.O. Box 130046, Austin, Texas, 78711, by e-filing on April 24,
2015.
/s/ Brian W. Wice
_________________________________
BRIAN W. WICE
5