Opinion
NO. WR-49,391-03
04-22-2019
EX PARTE JOHN WILLIAM KING, Applicant
ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND MOTION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION IN CAUSE NO. 8869C IN THE 1ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT JASPER COUNTY
NEWELL, J. filed a concurring opinion.
Even if we were to assume without deciding that McCoy v. Louisiana amounts to new law that overcomes the statutory bar against subsequent writs, this case is factually distinguishable from McCoy. Unlike in McCoy, the record here does not demonstrate that Applicant's attorneys conceded guilt at trial. Further, the record does not demonstrate that Applicant maintained his innocence consistently as McCoy did. For me, it is enough to simply say that the unique circumstances present in McCoy are not present in this case; Applicant has not made a prima facie case for relief under the so-called "new" law.
138 S. Ct. 1500 (2018).
This is evident in the Fifth Circuit's case denying federal habeas relief in which Applicant litigated a similar claim. In King v. Davis, Applicant argued broadly that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to adequately present the case for King's innocence during trial. As part of that claim, Applicant pointed to the same decisions and actions of trial counsel that he points to in this writ. Noting that counsel faced an uphill battle from the start, the Fifth Circuit held that counsel acted reasonably and maximized King's chances of acquittal. The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari regarding that decision after having decided McCoy.
883 F.3d 577, 581 (5th Cir. 2018).
Id. at 586.
139 S. Ct. 413 (2018). --------
Now, Applicant re-casts his claim as "trial counsel overrode his Sixth Amendment right to present an innocence defense." Putting aside how this may stretch the holding of McCoy, I see very little difference between Applicant's claims in federal court and the ones made here despite Applicant's attempt at re-branding. If the United States Supreme Court was not interested in Applicant's previous federal claims, it seems unlikely the Court will be interested in Applicant's claims here. Of course, that Court's refusal to grant review is not generally indicative of anything, approval or disapproval, of a lower court's opinion. Nevertheless, I would leave it to the higher court to address that possible inconsistency in this case rather than wait years for clarification.
With these thoughts, I concur. Filed: April 22, 2019 Publish