IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
ON APPLICATION FOR POST-CONVICTION WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND REVIEW FROM THE DENIAL OF A MOTION TO DETERMINE EXECUTION COMPETENCY FROM CAUSE NO. C-2-009642-0387844-C IN THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NUMBER TWO
TARRANT COUNTY
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, and a review of the trial court's finding of execution competency under Article 46.05. We now file and set the application and consolidate the two cases.
In April 1991, a jury found appellant 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 appellant's punishment at death. This Court affirmed appellant's conviction and sentence on direct appeal. Staley v. State, 887 S.W.2d 885 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994). The Court thereafter denied relief on appellant's initial post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus, and dismissed his first subsequent application. Ex parte Staley, No. WR-37,034-01 (Tex Crim. App. Sept. 16, 1998) (not designated for publication) and Ex parte Staley, 160 S.W.3d 56 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
In the Spring of 2006, appellant filed in the trial court a motion pursuant to Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 46.05 challenging his competency to be executed. Because the trial court subsequently withdrew the scheduled execution date, the motion to stay the execution filed with this Court was dismissed as moot. Ex parte Staley, No. WR-37,034-03 (Tex. Crim. App. Apr. 12, 2006) (not designated for publication). In conjunction with the competency proceedings, the trial court issued an order on April 11, 2006, compelling appellant to submit to a medical examination to determine what medications should be prescribed to alleviate the symptoms of mental illness he was experiencing, and compelling him to comply with the medication regimen that was established.
In response to this order, appellant filed in this Court an application for a writ of mandamus and/or a writ of prohibition which this Court on June 7, 2006, denied him leave to file without written order. Appellant then appealed the trial court's order requiring him to submit to medication, which appeal this Court dismissed as a non-appealable interlocutory order. Staley v. State, 233 S.W.3d 337 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).
On February 23, 2012, the trial court issued an order setting appellant's execution for May 16, 2012. On April 5, the State filed a motion for a competency evaluation, and the trial court appointed two experts to examine appellant. The trial court held a hearing, and on May 1 it entered an order in which it found appellant to be competent to be executed. On May 7, 2012, appellant filed pleadings in the trial court in which he asserted, among other issues, that the trial court erred in finding him competent and that his forced medication violates the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Appellant's pleadings purported to be both an application for a writ of habeas corpus and a request for a review of the trial court's finding of execution competency. Because this Court had another case pending review that stood in a similar posture, (1) and because this Court determined that appellant's case also raised additional issues, it determined that further review was necessary and entered an order staying appellant's execution. Ex parte Staley, No. WR-37,034-05 (Tex. Crim. App. May 14, 2012) (not designated for publication).
Before proceeding further in this case, the Court directs each party to brief the following issues:
(1) The language of Article 46.05 implies that a motion filed under the statute is filed by the defendant or by someone on his behalf. Can the State, which is technically a defendant's adversary, file a motion under this Article? Is the trial court's ruling on such a motion reviewable and, if so, by what authority and under what standard of review?
(2) Are appellant's claims concerning the issue of forcible medication properly before this Court now in either the Article 46.05 review or in the Article 11.071 application for writ of habeas corpus? If not, by what method, if any, can these claims be reviewed?
(3) If the forcible medication claims are reviewable, by what standard should they be reviewed?
Briefs from appellant and the State shall be filed in this Court within 60 days of the date of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF AUGUST, 2012.
Do not publish.
1. See Green v. State, S.W.3d , Nos. AP-76,374, AP-76,376, and AP-76,381 (Tex. Crim. App. June 27, 2012).