Leonard Uresti Rojas was executed by the state of Texas on Dec. 4, one of 33 Texas executions in 2002. His story has some of the characteristics of a couple of current, highly publicized Texas murder trials — adultery, betrayal, blind rage, revenge, possible madness, etc. But Rojas didn’t have the cash for a high-powered criminal defense attorney, nor did he attract daily headline coverage and TV film crews from all over the country. He has, however, finally generated a little post-mortem attention. Last week, three judges on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals — which had quickly denied his pre-execution appeal — issued an extremely unusual dissent from the court’s refusal to accept Rojas’ claim that he had been the victim of incompetent court-appointed counsel.
Judge Tom Price, joined by Judges Sharon Johnson and Charles Holcomb, pointed out that David Chapman, the Fort Worth attorney assigned to Rojas by the CCA, had no capital experience, had been sanctioned several times by the State Bar of Texas, suffered from bipolar disorder during the case, and by his own admission performed only cursory work and missed crucial appeal deadlines. Price acknowledged that the CCA “is in an awkward position” because it maintains the list of “competent” attorneys, adding, “It is difficult to admit that mistakes have been made.”
Presiding Judge Sharon Keller and colleagues Mike Keasler and Cathy Cochran not only did not admit a mistake had been made but blasted Price et al. for bothering to issue an opinion after its subject had expired. “Importantly, any jurisdiction this Court might have arguably had over applicant’s claims expired upon his execution. … [The dissenters’ arguments] come too late, serving no apparent legitimate purpose,” Keller wrote. Her ruling trotted out the CCA’s controversial prior ruling, in the case of Anthony Graves, that there is no right to contest whether an appointed appeal counsel deemed “competent” actually does a competent job.
Price dissented then, and his repeated dissent now may have been a none-too-subtle hint to lawmakers — bringing more scrutiny to the heavily criticized CCA, notorious for rejecting virtually every capital appeal. “I think the judges on the court are coming to the conclusion that this process is not working,” says Bryce Benjet of the Texas Defenders Service. A key lawmaker on the issue, Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, commented on the Rojas case, “The Court of Criminal Appeals has once again rubber-stamped approval of blatantly incompetent representation in a death-penalty habeas corpus case.”
Meanwhile, a January report by Amnesty International on capital punishment in Texas notes that negative national and international attention is increasingly focusing on the state, and quotes the chair of the European Parliament: “Europe is the foremost foreign investor in Texas. Many companies, under pressure from shareholders and public opinion to apply ethical business practices, are beginning to consider the possibility of restricting investment in the U.S. to states that do not apply the death penalty.” For the full AI report, see report No. AMR 51/010/2003 at www.web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/Index/.
This article appears in February 21 • 2003.
