Hughes v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 15 January 1998
• Docket Number: No. CIV.A. G-97-537.,CIV.A. G-97-537.
• Citation: Hughes v. Johnson, 991 F.Supp. 621 (S.D. Tex. 1998)
• Parties: Billy George HUGHES, Jr. v. Gary JOHNSON, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas

991 F.Supp. 621

Billy George HUGHES, Jr. v.Gary JOHNSON, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.

No. CIV.A. G-97-537.

United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Galveston Division.

January 15, 1998.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Michael Anthony Maness, Houston, TX, for Billy George Hughes, Jr., petitioner.

Elizabeth A. Martin, Office of Attorney General of Texas, Austin, TX, for Gary L. Johnson, respondent.

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND VACATING STAY OF EXECUTION

KENT, District Judge.

Before the Court are PetitionerBilly George Hughes' Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Respondent's Answer and Motion for Summary Judgment.For the reasons that follow, Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and Petitioner's Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED.Therefore, the Stay of Execution granted by this Court on September 12, 1997 is hereby VACATED.A Certificate of Appealability ("COA") is not issued.

I.FACTUAL SUMMARY

The following facts are taken from Hughes v. State,897 S.W.2d 285(Tex.Crim.App.1994).Following a lengthy crime spree, on the evening of April 4, 1976, Billy George Hughes checked into the Days Inn Motel in Brookshire, Texas, using a stolen credit card.After the clerk discovered that the credit card was stolen, she confronted Hughes in his room about it.While discussing the matter with Hughes, the clerk noticed a gun on his bed.The clerk immediately left Hughes' room to notify motel security of the gun.In the meantime, Hughes got into his stolen car and left heading west on Interstate 10.The clerk then called the police.

Texas Department of Public Safety("DPS") Troopers Jack Reichert and Mark Frederick responded to the dispatcher's call, which had described Hughes and his car.After spotting Hughes and pulling him over, Trooper Frederick approached the driver's side of the vehicle.Trooper Reichert, while getting out of the patrol car immediately thereafter and approaching the vehicle, heard a muffled shot and saw Frederick grunt, lurch to the side, and fall to the ground.Reichert shot six times at Hughes' car as it immediately sped away.Frederick sustained a fatal wound from the encounter and was declared dead in an ambulance while en route to the hospital.

A vehicle containing numerous bullet holes and matching the description of the vehicle involved in the shooting incident was reported abandoned several miles from the scene of the offense.A search of the vehicle revealed a loaded, sawed-off shotgun and numerous other weapons and ammunition.Also found in the vehicle was a room key from the Days Inn Motel.

The ensuing search for Hughes took two and one-half days.Arriving by helicopter at a location where Hughes reportedly had been sighted, law enforcement officers found Hughes under a tree.Hughes initially pointed the weapon he was carrying at the helicopter, but later threw down the weapon and surrendered.The weapon discarded by Hughes was subsequently identified by ballistics experts as the revolver responsible for Trooper Frederick's death.

II.PROCEDURAL HISTORY

After a second jury trial,¹ Hughes was convicted for the capital murder of Officer Mark A. Frederick on June 9, 1988 pursuant to TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. 19.03(a).At the punishment phase of trial, the jury answered affirmatively the three issues submitted pursuant to TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 37.071(b)(1), (2), and (3).Hughes was then sentenced to death.

Hughes' conviction and sentence were automatically appealed to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.That court affirmed his conviction in Hughes v. State,897 S.W.2d 285(Tex.Crim.App.1994).The United States Supreme Court then denied certiorari in Hughes v. State,514 U.S. 1112, 115 S.Ct. 1967, 131 L.Ed.2d 857(1995).On October 14, 1996, Hughes filed an application for state habeas corpus relief.The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied his request for relief, and his petition for certiorari was denied by the United States Supreme Court on October 14, 1997.Hughes was thereafter scheduled to die by lethal injection on September 19, 1997.

On September 10, 1997, Hughes filed with this Court a Motion to Stay his September 19, 1997 execution and at that time also filed a federal application for Writ of Habeas Corpus.Two days later, the Attorney General's office filed a notice of nonopposition to Hughes' Motion for Stay, stating that although Hughes did not show a likelihood of success on the merits of his constitutional claims, additional time was necessary to resolve the issues properly.Because Hughes' Petition, which is two hundred and thirty-two pages long and contains thirty-four grounds for relief, was filed only nine days before he was scheduled to be executed, this Court granted his Motion for Stay of Execution on September 12, 1997.SeeLonchar v. Thomas,517 U.S. 314, 116 S.Ct. 1293, 1297, 134 L.Ed.2d 440(1996)(declaring that a stay of execution must be granted if the claims in the first habeas petition are not subject to summary dismissal and cannot be addressed on the merits before the date of execution).

III.STANDARD OF REVIEW

When ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the evidence is viewed through "the prism of the substantive evidentiary burden."Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,477 U.S. 242, 254, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2513, 91 L.Ed.2d 202(1986).In this case, because Hughes' Petition is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2254,² that prism differs depending upon whether the issue is one of law, fact, or both.SeeDrinkard v. Johnson,97 F.3d 751, 767-68(5th Cir.1996), cert. denied,___ U.S. ___, 117 S.Ct. 1114, 137 L.Ed.2d 315(1997).³For questions of fact, habeas relief may be granted only if the Court finds that the state court made a determination of fact which was unreasonable in light of the evidence presented to it.See28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2);Drinkard,97 F.3d at 767-68.When reviewing such factual determinations, the Court must presume correct the factual findings of the state court, unless the Petitioner"rebut[s] the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence."See28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1);Jackson v. Anderson,112 F.3d 823, 824-25(5th Cir.1997), petition for cert. filed,(U.S.Sept. 26, 1997)(No. 97-6382).When considering questions of law, on the other hand, this Court may grant habeas relief only if the state court's determination of law is contrary to "clearly established"Supreme Court precedent.See28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1);Drinkard,97 F.3d at 768.Habeas relief generally may not be premised on rules of constitutional law that have yet to be announced or that were announced after the challenged conviction became final.SeeTeague v. Lane,489 U.S. 288, 305-07, 109 S.Ct. 1060, 1073, 103 L.Ed.2d 334(1989).Finally, for mixed questions — that is, those containing issues of law and fact — relief is granted only if the state-court decision"is so clearly incorrect that it would not be debatable among reasonable jurists."Drinkard,97 F.3d at 769;see28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)(providing that relief may be granted when a state-court decision involves an unreasonable application of clearly established law);Carter v. Johnson,110 F.3d 1098, 1106-08(5th Cir.)("With a mixed question of law and fact, the facts are presumed correct and then the law is reviewed for reasonableness, not de novo."), vacated on other grounds,___ U.S. ___, 118 S.Ct. 409, 139 L.Ed.2d 313(1997).

IV.ANALYSIS⁴

Petitioner Hughes has asserted numerous allegations in his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.The Court will address each claim as required.SeeKing v. McCotter,795 F.2d 517, 518(5th Cir.1986)(per curiam)(remanding with instructions that a statement of reason be provided for the denial of each claim presented in petitioner's writ of habeas corpus);Flowers v. Blackburn,759 F.2d 1195, 1195-96(5th Cir.1985).

At the outset, the Court notes that the Supreme Court has upheld Texas' capital punishment scheme.SeeJurek v. Texas,428 U.S. 262, 273-74, 96 S.Ct. 2950, 2957, 49 L.Ed.2d 929(1976);In re West,119 F.3d 295, 296(5th Cir.1997)("The Supreme Court has upheld both the constitutionality of the death penalty and Texas's capital sentencing procedures, and there has been no change in the law ....");see alsoPulley v. Harris,465 U.S. 37, 53 n. 15, 104 S.Ct. 871, 881 n. 15, 79 L.Ed.2d 29(1984).

A.Petitioner's First Claim

In his first claim, Petitioner asserts that the evidence adduced at trial was constitutionally insufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted deliberately and with the reasonable expectation that Trooper Frederick's death would result.⁵Here, Petitioner challenges jury factual findings which were made during the punishment phase of trial, after the jury had already determined that his conduct fell within that narrow category constituting capital murder.In Tuilaepa v. California,512 U.S. 967, 979-80, 114 S.Ct. 2630, 2638, 129 L.Ed.2d 750(1994), the Supreme Court held that the sentencer has unbridled discretion to impose death at the punishment phase, so long as that discretion is not exercised in an arbitrary manner.The Court understands and generally agrees with Respondent's arguments that, under the circumstances and so long as the sentence is not arbitrary or capricious, no review is required of the jury's answers to the special issues under the teachings of Teague.⁶However, because the ultimate sentence is involved in this case, the Court will use an abundance of caution.

Because Petitioner's first claim involves a mixed question of law and fact, this Court on habeas review asks whether the reviewing court reasonably applied the proper standard for review of factual determinations.Issues of fact are reviewed using the standard set forth in Jackson v. Virginia,443 U.S....