Young, Clinton Lee ( 2021 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
NO. WR-65,137-05
EX PARTE CLINTON LEE YOUNG, Applicant
ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
IN CAUSE NO. CR-27181-E IN THE 385TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
MIDLAND COUNTY
Per curiam.
OPINION
This is a subsequent application for a writ of habeas corpus in a capital case filed
pursuant to the provisions of Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 11.071, § 5. 1
Applicant was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death in April 2003.
We affirmed his conviction and sentence on direct appeal. Young v. State, No. AP-
74,643 (Tex. Crim. App. Sept. 28, 2005) (not designated for publication).
1
Unless otherwise indicated, all references to Articles are to the Texas Code of Criminal
Procedure.
YOUNG – 2
In March 2005, Applicant filed his initial postconviction application for a writ of
habeas corpus (our -01) in the trial court, raising fourteen claims. In January, March, and
June 2006, Applicant filed pleadings that we determined to be his first subsequent writ
application (our -02), which raised nine additional claims. This Court denied relief on
Applicant’s initial postconviction application for writ of habeas corpus and dismissed his
first subsequent application as an abuse of the writ. Ex parte Young, Nos. WR-65,137-01
and WR-65,137-02 (Tex. Crim App. Dec. 20, 2006) (not designated for publication).
Applicant filed his second subsequent habeas application (our -03), in which he
raised four claims, in the trial court in March 2009. This Court dismissed two of the
claims as procedurally barred but found that two claims met the requirements of Article
11.071 § 5, and we remanded those claims to the trial court. Ex parte Young, No.
WR-65,137-03 (Tex. Crim. App. June 3, 2009) (not designated for publication). During
the remand, Applicant waived one of the remanded claims. When the case returned to
this Court, we denied relief on the remaining remanded claim and dismissed the waived
claim. Ex parte Young, No. WR-65,137-03 (Tex. Crim. App. June 20, 2012) (not
designated for publication).
Applicant filed his third subsequent habeas application (our -04) in the trial court
on October 2, 2017, raising eight claims. We found that Applicant’s first claim, in which
he contends that the State unknowingly used false or misleading testimony at trial, met
the requirements of Article 11.071 § 5, and we remanded that claim to the trial court for
consideration. Ex parte Young, No. WR-65,137-04 (Tex. Crim. App. Oct. 18, 2017) (not
YOUNG – 3
designated for publication).
While the case was on remand, Applicant filed his fourth subsequent habeas
application (our -05, which is the subject of this opinion) in the trial court on August 14,
2020. In the application, Applicant presents three claims based on newly discovered
information that one of the prosecutors representing the State in Applicant’s capital
murder case was also employed as a “judicial clerk” for the trial judge during Applicant’s
trial and initial postconviction proceedings. We concluded that Applicant’s claims met
the requirements of Article 11.071 § 5, and we remanded all three claims to the trial court
for consideration. Ex parte Young, Nos. WR-65,137-04 and WR-65,137-05 (Tex. Crim.
App. Dec. 16, 2020) (not designated for publication).
RELEVANT FACTS
The trial court conducted a one-day evidentiary hearing via Zoom. Four witnesses
testified remotely: the current Midland County District Attorney, the chief appellate
prosecutor, the County Attorney for Midland County, and one of Applicant’s appointed
trial attorneys. Forty-three exhibits were admitted at the writ hearing; most were
stipulated to by the parties, all were admitted without objection. The judge who presided
over Applicant’s capital murder trial, Judge John Hyde, passed away in January 2012,
and thus was not available to testify. Further, the record reflects that the prosecutor who
was alleged to have been paid as Judge Hyde’s judicial clerk, Weldon Ralph Petty,
refused to appear to testify at the writ hearing, first expressing health concerns related to
possible COVID-19 exposure and later invoking his Fifth Amendment privilege against
YOUNG – 4
self-incrimination. The habeas judge found that Petty was “unavailable to testify as a
witness” due to his Fifth Amendment invocation.
The evidence admitted at the writ hearing demonstrates that Petty began working
for the Midland County District Attorney’s Office as a part-time prosecutor in 2001. He
became a full-time prosecutor in 2002 and worked as a full-time prosecutor for the
Midland County DA’s Office until his retirement in June 2019.
In 2002, when Petty began to work full-time at the DA’s office, Judge Hyde
sought an opinion from Russell Malm, the County Attorney for Midland County, about
whether Petty could receive pay for doing work for the district judges on habeas corpus
cases in addition to his regular salary as an assistant district attorney. The concern was
the constitutional prohibition against employees receiving additional compensation for
work for which they were already being paid. Because Petty’s work for the judges was
done on his own time, and not as part of his duties at the DA’s office, Malm concluded
that Petty’s work for the judges was completely separate from his job as an assistant
district attorney, and he could be paid by the county for that work. Malm made it clear at
the writ hearing that his opinion was only about payment, and not about whether the dual
employment would create an ethical conflict of interest.
The evidence also establishes that from 2001 through 2014 and again in 2017 and
2018, Petty was paid by the Midland County district court judges—including Judge
Hyde—for “legal work” performed in connection with postconviction writs of habeas
corpus. When a habeas application was filed, the judge of the convicting court assigned
YOUNG – 5
the writ to Petty. He then reviewed the file, performed any necessary research, and
submitted a recommendation and a proposed order with findings of facts and conclusions
of law to the assigning judge.
The evidence further shows that the District Attorney who hired Petty as a
part-time prosecutor and later a full-time prosecutor, Al Schorre, knew of Petty’s
employment by the district court judges, as did the First Assistant District Attorney,
Teresa Clingman, who became District Attorney after Schorre. The evidence indicates,
however, that the other prosecutors in the office who were involved in Applicant’s trial
and subsequent postconviction proceedings were not aware of Petty’s judicial
employment.
Midland County District Attorney Laura Nodolf, who was elected in 2016,
discovered Petty’s judicial employment during the 2019 budget process after Petty’s
retirement. She had requested money for an intake attorney and contacted the county
treasurer to see if the position had been approved. The treasurer sent Nodolf a report in
the form of an Excel spreadsheet with all the departments’ requests and approvals. In the
report, Nodolf discovered a line-item payment from the district courts to Petty. Nodolf’s
ensuing investigation revealed that Petty had been paid for working on numerous
postconviction writs by multiple judges while he was working as a prosecutor for the
Midland County DA’s Office. Petty confirmed to Nodolf that he had been getting paid
by the district court judges while working as a prosecutor. He maintained that he worked
for the judges during off hours at his home, not while he was at the office.
YOUNG – 6
On discovering Petty’s judicial employment, Nodolf went to Erik Kalenak, the
chief appellate prosecutor who assisted Petty with, and later assumed responsibility for,
handling Applicant’s postconviction habeas proceedings, to discern if he was aware of
Petty’s judicial employment. Kalenak was not and was “shocked” when he learned of it
from Nodolf. Nodolf and Kalenak realized that Petty might have been paid by the judges
for work on Applicant’s capital murder case, and Kalenak immediately informed
Applicant’s habeas attorney of the discovery of Petty’s judicial employment. Kalenak
then filed a motion to recuse the Midland County DA’s Office from Applicant’s case,
which was granted. The DA’s office then sent letters to each of the defendants for whom
Petty had billed the district court judges for work on postconviction writs—some 300
plus defendants—to inform them of the “ethical situation.”
The evidence at the writ hearing also establishes that, although Schorre and
Clingman were the primary prosecutors in Applicant’s capital murder trial, Petty was
actively part of the prosecution team. Petty was “basically the legal advisor to [the] team
that was prosecuting the case” and “probably drafted just about every single motion in
that case . . . that the prosecution filed.” He also appeared in court multiple times during
the trial proceedings to argue particular legal issues.
According to exhibits admitted at the writ hearing, during Applicant’s capital
murder trial proceedings—specifically, from the period beginning with Applicant’s
capital murder indictment on February 7, 2002, through the denial of Applicant’s motion
for new trial on June 20, 2003—the district court judges collectively paid Petty $16,700.
YOUNG – 7
The exhibits further show that Judge Hyde paid Petty $7,500 while he was presiding over
Applicant’s capital murder trial proceedings. 2
In addition, the exhibits and testimony establish that Petty represented the State
during Applicant’s initial 11.071 and first subsequent writ proceedings before Judge
Hyde. The exhibits also show that Judge Hyde paid Petty $1,500 for legal work
performed in connection with Applicant’s initial postconviction application for writ of
habeas corpus. This combined evidence demonstrates that, in his role as prosecutor,
Petty opposed habeas relief at the writ hearings while at the same time, in his role as
judicial clerk to Judge Hyde, he drafted the order recommending the denial of Applicant’s
initial 11.071 writ application.
After the Zoom writ hearing, Applicant submitted proposed findings of fact and
conclusions of law to the habeas judge. The State filed a document that contained two
sets of the State’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Both sets conceded
Petty’s judicial employment while prosecuting Applicant—and the impropriety of it—but
proposed alternative dispositions: version “A” recommended denying habeas relief;
version “B” recommended granting habeas relief. After some discussions, the habeas
judge adopted Applicant’s proposed findings and conclusions in toto, making no
additional findings or conclusions.
2
According to the evidence in the record before this Court, over the course of Petty’s
judicial employment, the district court judges collectively paid Petty at least $132,900. Judge
Hyde paid Petty at least $64,100.
YOUNG – 8
After the case returned to this Court, the parties filed an agreed stipulation and
request for judicial notice, which asked this Court to take judicial notice of the Texas
Supreme Court’s order accepting Petty’s resignation from the State Bar of Texas in lieu
of disciplinary action. In the order, the Texas Supreme Court “deem[ed] the professional
misconduct detailed [against Petty] conclusively established for all purposes.” That
misconduct included that Petty
was employed full-time as an appellate attorney with the Midland County
District Attorney’s Office, while Petty was also being paid by the District
Judges of Midland County to work on writs in cases to which he was
assigned in the District Attorney’s office. These facts establish violations
of Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.06(b)(2).
See Tex. Disciplinary Rules Prof’l Conduct R. 1.06(b)(2) (providing that, with exceptions
not applicable here, “a lawyer shall not represent a person if the representation of that
person reasonably appears to be or become adversely limited by the lawyer’s or law
firm’s responsibilities . . . to a third person or by the lawyer’s or law firm’s own
interests.”).
ANALYSIS
Underlying all three claims in the instant writ application (our -05) is Applicant’s
contention that Petty’s judicial employment while simultaneously prosecuting him—and
the State’s failure to disclose it—violated his due process rights to an impartial judge and
a fair trial.
In Claim 1, Applicant alleges that his right to an impartial judge was violated
because Judge Hyde was actually biased or, if not, was presumptively biased against him
YOUNG – 9
due to the judge’s employment of Petty while Petty was representing the State at trial and
in the postconviction proceedings before Judge Hyde. See Buntion v. Quarterman, 524
F.3d 664, 672 (5th Cir. 2008).
In Claim 2, Applicant contends that his right to a fair trial was violated because
Judge Hyde was constitutionally disqualified, statutorily disqualified, and subject to
disqualification and recusal under the Rules of Civil Procedure because he employed
Petty while Petty represented the State in his court. See T EX. C ONST. art. 5, § 11; Art.
30.01; T EX. R. C IV. P. 18b(a)(1), (b)(1) & (5).
In Claim 3, Applicant asserts that the State violated his right to a fair trial because
the prosecutorial misconduct pervading Applicant’s case—including Petty’s simultaneous
employment for the judge presiding over Applicant’s trial proceedings and the State’s
failure to disclose it—was misconduct that “shock[s] the conscience.” See Rochin v.
California, 342 U.S. 165, 172 (1952).
In its signed order, the habeas court concluded “that Applicant Clinton Young’s
structural due process rights were violated” by Judge Hyde’s employment of Petty as a
judicial clerk while Petty was prosecuting Applicant for capital murder before Judge
Hyde. The habeas judge recommends that relief be granted.
Although we agree with the habeas judge’s ultimate conclusion that relief be
granted, we decline to adopt the habeas judge’s findings of fact and conclusion of law.
We have reviewed the record with respect to Applicant’s claims. The undisputed
evidence in the record establishes that an attorney working as a paid judicial clerk for the
YOUNG – 10
judge presiding over Applicant’s capital murder proceedings simultaneously represented
the State against Applicant during his trial and his initial postconviction proceedings
before that same judge. At the writ hearing, Assistant District Attorney Kalenak aptly
described the problem with Petty’s dual role: “[Y]ou can’t serve two masters in that way.
You . . . [can] either be an impartial person that the judges are consulting, or you [can] be
. . . an advocate with the District Attorney’s Office. You . . . can’t do both. I mean,
that’s like professional responsibility 101.” The record demonstrates that Petty was
“serving two masters.” Judge Hyde was one of the “masters,” and he allowed his
“servant,” his paid judicial clerk, to represent one of the parties appearing before him in a
contested legal matter—namely, Applicant’s capital murder trial.
“A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process.” In re
Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136 (1955). Further, “fundamental to the judiciary is the
public’s confidence in the impartiality of our judges and the proceedings over which they
preside.” United States v. Jordan, 49 F.3d 152, 155 (5th Cir. 1995); see, e.g., Metts v.
State, 510 S.W.3d 1, 8 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (“Regardless of any actual bias harbored
by [the trial court judge], the appearance of impropriety is palpable.”). Almost a century
ago, the Supreme Court explained that “[e]very procedure which would offer a possible
temptation to the average man as a judge . . . not to hold the balance nice, clear, and true
between the State and the accused denies the latter due process of law.” Tumey v. Ohio,
273 U.S. 510, 532 (1927). The Supreme Court later recognized that “[s]uch a stringent
rule may sometimes bar trial by judges who have no actual bias and who would do their
YOUNG – 11
very best to weigh the scales of justice equally between contending parties.” Murchison,
349 U.S. at 136. “But to perform its high function in the best way ‘justice must satisfy
the appearance of justice.’” Id. (quoting Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14 (1954)).
Judicial and prosecutorial misconduct—in the form of an undisclosed employment
relationship between the trial judge and the prosecutor appearing before him—tainted
Applicant’s entire proceeding from the outset. As a result, little confidence can be placed
in the fairness of the proceedings or the outcome of Applicant’s trial. The taint, the
record shows, continued through Applicant’s postconviction proceedings and persisted
until the revelation in 2019 of Petty’s judicial employment upon inadvertent discovery by
District Attorney Nodolf. The evidence presented in this case supports only one legal
conclusion: that Applicant was deprived of his due process rights to a fair trial and an
impartial judge.
CONCLUSION
Based on our review of the record, we grant Applicant’s request for relief, vacate
Applicant’s judgment of conviction, and order that Applicant be remanded to the custody
of the Sheriff of Midland County to answer the charge set out in the indictment.
Delivered: September 22, 2021
Do Not Publish