Pruett, Robert Lynn ( 2015 )

WR-62,099-04
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
Transmitted 4/20/2015 8:00:34 PM
Accepted 4/21/2015 8:04:56 AM
ABEL ACOSTA
Cause Number WR-62,099-04 CLERK
RECEIVED
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
4/21/2015
Ex Parte Robert Lynn Pruett ABEL ACOSTA, CLERK
State’s Response
to Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus
and
Motion for Stay of Execution
On Appeal in Cause Number B-01-M015-0-PR-B
From the 156th District Court of Bee County, Texas
CAPITAL MURDER CASE
EXECUTION DATE SET FOR APRIL 28, 2015
Melinda Fletcher
SBN 18403630
Special Prosecution Unit
P O Box 1744
Amarillo, Texas 79105
Phone 806.367.9407
Fax 866.923.9253
mfletcher@sputexas.org
Table of Contents
Index of Authorities .................................. 3
Statement of the Case ................................. 4
Statement of Facts .................................... 5
Direct Appeal ........................................ 5
Evidence from the DNA Hearing ........................ 7
Summary of the Argument ............................... 8
Argument .............................................. 9
Pruett’s files his claim under Article 11.073 of
the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. That Article
does not operate to grant him relief under the facts
of this case. ........................................ 9
Prayer ............................................... 11
Certificate of Compliance ............................ 12
Certificate of Service ............................... 12
WR-62,099-04 State’s Response pg. 2
Index of Authorities
Texas State Case Law
Pruett v. State, 2004 WL 3093232
(Tex. Crim. App. 2004) ......................... 5, 6
Pruett v. State, No. AP-77,037 (Tex. Crim. App.
Oct. 22, 2014) (not designated for publication),
cert. denied, Pruett v. Texas, No. 14-8097
(Mar. 30, 2015) ............................ 8, 9, 10
Texas Code of Criminal Procedure
Art. 11.073 .................................... 8, 9, 10
WR-62,099-04 State’s Response pg. 3
Cause Number WR-62,099-04
Ex Parte Robert Lynn Pruett
To the Honorable Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals:
Respondent, the State of Texas, respectfully
presents this response in opposition to the granting of
a Motion for Stay of Execution or a Writ of Habeas Corpus
to Robert Lynn Pruett. Pruett’s grounds for relief have
already been tried, they have already been tested, and
they have already failed.
Statement of the Case
Pruett is scheduled to be executed on April 28, 2015.
He seeks a stay of execution and a writ of habeas corpus,
alleging new DNA evidence that would have probably
changed the outcome of trial, as well as a conspiracy to
kill Nagle and frame Pruett. The State opposes the writ
and the stay of execution.
WR-62,099-04 State’s Response pg. 4
Statement of Facts
Direct Appeal
Pruett appealed his capital murder conviction
directly to this Court, filed as cause number AP-74,370.
One of the issues raised on appeal was the trial court’s
refusal to allow Pruett to introduce evidence of an
alleged conspiracy against the murder victim, Nagle. See
Pruett v. State, 2004 WL 3093232, at *3 (Tex. Crim. App.
2004). This Court wrote:
In his fourth point of error, the appellant again
argues that the trial court denied him the
fundamental constitutional right to present a
meaningful defense. He specifically complains
that the trial court erroneously excluded
evidence “that Nagle's death may have been
related to an investigation involving
correctional officers smuggling contraband into
the prison.
Defense counsel informed the trial court outside
the presence of the jury that he wanted to
question Thomas J. Prasifka, the warden of the
McConnell prison unit, about “the fact that
there were 30 or more officers indicted for
smuggling dope into the prison and that Officer
Nagle may have actually ratted some of them out.”
Defense counsel argued that this evidence was
necessary to show that “[t]here was a motive for
the gang members who were getting the drugs to
kill Mr. Nagle, and there was a motive for
corrupt guards to kill Mr. Nagle.” Defense
WR-62,099-04 State’s Response pg. 5
counsel questioned Prasifka outside the jury's
presence to determine if Nagle had any
involvement in the investigation of the indicted
correctional officers. Prasifka testified that
Nagle did not act as an informant and had no
involvement in the investigation. The trial
court refused to permit defense counsel to
pursue this line of questioning with Prasifka in
front of the jury.
Defense counsel failed to produce any evidence
in support of his speculative theory that Nagle
was killed in retaliation for acting as an
informant against his fellow correctional
officers. As this court noted in Wiley v. State,
“The danger of ‘confusion of the issues' and
‘misleading the jury’ arises when circumstantial
evidence tends to sidetrack the jury into
consideration of factual disputes only
tangentially related to facts at issue in the
current case.” Prasifka denied that Nagle had
any involvement in the investigation. Allowing
the appellant to explore this issue without
further evidence and in the face of Prasifka's
denial of a link between Nagle and the
investigation would serve no purpose but to
“confus[e] the issues” and “mislead[ ] the
jury.” The trial court did not abuse its
discretion in refusing to permit defense counsel
to question Prasifka about this issue in front
of the jury. Point of error four is overruled.
Id., internal footnotes omitted.
WR-62,099-04 State’s Response pg. 6
Evidence from the DNA Hearing
There was no live testimony presented at the hearing
on the Chapter 64 requests. (RR 1) The only evidence is
Defendant’s Exhibit 1 (DX1), a report from Mitotyping
Technologies. The report concludes:
In summary, while it can sometimes be
appropriate to analyze STR data below threshold
for the purpose of excluding individuals, it is
my opinion that it would not be appropriate to
do so in this case. This is due to the
insufficient DNA in the torn paper sample
resulting in a high degree of uncertainty in the
peaks observed. Therefore, a meaningful
comparison between the torn paper sample and any
known samples cannot be performed.
The record is devoid of any mention from any of the DNA
labs that results were not achieved due to inappropriate
handling or storage of the evidence.
On April 20, 2015, this Court denied Pruett’s writ
of prohibition which alleged that new DNA technology is
available that would have probably changed the outcome
of the trial. This Court’s order denying relief in cause
WR-62,099-03, includes the following:
Relator also filed in the trial court in May
2013 a motion for post-conviction DNA and palm-
print testing under Chapter 64 of the Texas Code
of Criminal Procedure. The trial court granted
WR-62,099-04 State’s Response pg. 7
that testing. However, the results of the
testing were inconclusive, and the trial judge
found that it was not reasonably probable that
relator would have been acquitted had the new
results been available at trial. Relator
appealed that decision to this Court, and we
affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Pruett
v. State, No. AP-77,037 (Tex. Crim. App. Oct.
22, 2014) (not designated for publication),
cert. denied, Pruett v. Texas, No. 14-8097 (Mar.
30, 2015).
Summary of the Argument
Pruett wishes to argue in this case (1) that there
was a conspiracy against the murder victim, and (2) that
new DNA technology would have probably changed the
outcome of the trial. The conspiracy theory is not
recognizable under Art. 11.073 and the DNA argument has
been recently considered and rejected by this Court.
There is no reason to revisit the issue.
Pruett has had his due process and is now subject
to execution. Writ should not issue to stay his execution
or to grant him any other relief.
WR-62,099-04 State’s Response pg. 8
Argument
Pruett’s files his claim under Article 11.073 of the Texas
Code of Criminal Procedure. That Article does not operate
to grant him relief under the facts of this case.
Article 11.073 grants relief to a person when (1)
there is relevant scientific evidence that was not
available to be offered at the time of trial, and (2) the
court makes the finding that if the scientific evidence
had been presented at trial, on the preponderance of the
evidence the person would not have been convicted. Tex.
Code Crim. Proc. Art. 11.073.
Pruett’s writ asserts that “[h]ad the new scientific
evidence been presented to Pruett’s jurors, he probably
would not have been convicted.” (See p. 15 of Pruett’s
writ.) However, the new technology has already been
applied to this case, with no conclusive results. See
Pruett v. State, 2014 WL 5422573, at *1. The trial court
determined that the inconclusive results would not have
WR-62,099-04 State’s Response pg. 9
probably resulted in a different verdict, and this Court
affirmed the trial court. Id. at *1-*2.
Despite the inconclusive findings and the
affirmation of the trial court’s decision, Pruett filed
cause number WR-62,099-03 with this Court, seeking relief
with the same argument. This Court denied that relief on
April 20, 2015.
There is no new scientific evidence in this case that
would probably result in a different verdict at trial.
Pruett’s “Therefore Article 11.073 does not operate to
grant Pruett the relief he seeks.
WR-62,099-04 State’s Response pg. 10
Prayer
Because there is no new evidence and no new
arguments, the State prays that this Honorable Court deny
Pruett’s Motion for Stay of Execution and his Writ of
Habeas Corpus.
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Melinda Fletcher
Melinda Fletcher
Appellate Attorney
SBN 18403630
Special Prosecution Unit
P O Box 1744
Amarillo, Texas 79105
Phone 806.367.9407
Fax 866.923.9253
mfletcher@sputexas.org
WR-62,099-04 State’s Response pg. 11
Certificate of Compliance
I hereby certify that, according to Microsoft Word,
this response contains a total of only 1515 words. The
length of this document is in compliance with the Texas
Rules of Appellate Procedure.
/s/ Melinda Fletcher
Melinda Fletcher
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the
foregoing Brief for the State was served on David Dow and
Jeff Newberry, the attorneys for Pruett, via electronic
mail on this the 21st day of April, 2015.
/s/ Melinda Fletcher
Melinda Fletcher
WR-62,099-04 State’s Response pg. 12