Court of Criminal Appeals Vacates Travis County Restraining Order That Had Blocked Robert Roberson’s Execution

The decision

On October 17, 2024, the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas vacated a temporary restraining order that the 200th District Court of Travis County had issued earlier that day enjoining the Texas Department of Criminal Justice from carrying out the death warrant for Robert Leslie Roberson, III. In a per curiam opinion, the court granted a motion for leave to file a petition for writ of mandamus brought by the Attorney General on behalf of TDCJ. The court held that because the effect of the district court’s order was to stay a scheduled execution, the order circumvented the court’s decision and disobeyed its mandate, and was therefore subject to the court’s mandamus authority.

Rather than direct the district judge to vacate the order, the court vacated it itself, “effective immediately.” The court stated that no motions for rehearing would be entertained and instructed its clerk to issue mandate immediately.

Judge Newell filed a dissenting opinion, in which Judges Richardson, Walker and McClure joined.

Background

According to the opinion, Roberson was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death in February 2003. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence on direct appeal in an unpublished opinion in June 2007, and its mandate issued on October 22, 2007.

The opinion recounts Roberson’s post-conviction litigation under Article 11.071 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. The court denied relief on his initial habeas application in September 2009 and, the same day, dismissed as a subsequent application a filing styled “Notice of Desire to Raise Additional Habeas Corpus Claims.” In 2016, Roberson filed a second subsequent application; the court remanded the claims for review on the merits, the convicting court held a hearing and recommended denial, and the court denied relief on all claims on January 11, 2023.

In July 2024, the convicting court scheduled Roberson’s execution for October 17. Roberson filed a third subsequent application in August, which the court dismissed on September 11 for failing to satisfy the requirements of Article 11.071, Section 5. He filed a fourth subsequent application in October. The court stated that, after “thoroughly review[ing] the application and entire record,” it found on October 16 that this application also failed to satisfy Section 5. The opinion states: “As of the date of this opinion, Roberson has no pending 11.071 applications.”

The opinion then describes the events that led to the mandamus proceeding. On October 16, the Texas House of Representatives’ Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence issued a subpoena commanding “any peace officer of the State of Texas” to “summon Robert Roberson, located in the custody of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, to appear before the Committee” at the Texas Capitol Building on October 21—“four days after Roberson’s scheduled execution date,” as the court noted.

On October 17, members of the Texas House of Representatives sought injunctive relief in the 200th District Court of Travis County. The opinion states: “After a hearing, Respondent issued a Temporary Restraining Order from the bench, enjoining TDCJ from carrying out the death warrant.” The opinion does not describe the grounds the House members asserted or the basis on which the district court granted the order.

TDCJ, through the Attorney General, then filed in the Court of Criminal Appeals a motion for leave to file a petition for writ of mandamus. It asked the court to order Judge Jessica Mangrum of the 200th District Court to vacate the restraining order or, in the alternative, to vacate the order itself. The opinion describes the relator’s argument in one sentence: “Relator argues that the Order circumvents this Court’s decision and disobeys this Court’s mandate.” The opinion does not describe any argument by Roberson, the district judge, or the House members.

The court’s reasoning

Filing in the Court of Criminal Appeals

The court addressed where the mandamus petition belonged in a single sentence. Because the case involves a death sentence, the court stated, “it was proper for Relator to file the motion and petition in this Court.” The court supported this statement with a “Cf.” citation to its 2003 decision in Padilla v. McDaniel. The opinion does not otherwise discuss its jurisdiction or the jurisdiction of any other court over the dispute, and it granted leave to file.

The court’s authority over orders of other state courts

The court’s analysis rested on two of its earlier decisions. It quoted State ex rel. Wilson v. Briggs, a 1961 decision: “The Court of Criminal Appeals is the court of last resort in this state in criminal matters. This being so, no other court of this state has authority to overrule or circumvent its decisions, or disobey its mandates.”

From that premise, the court quoted its 1994 decision in State ex rel. Holmes v. Honorable Court of Appeals for Third District: “[a]ny order by another state court which purports to stay a scheduled execution circumvents [this Court’s] decision and disobeys our mandate.”

Application to the temporary restraining order

The court applied Holmes to the Travis County order in two sentences. It stated: “The effect of Respondent’s order was to stay Roberson’s execution, circumvent our decision, and disobey our mandate.” The order was “therefore subject to this Court’s mandamus authority,” with a citation to Holmes.

The court did not analyze the restraining order’s stated basis. Its reasoning turned on the order’s effect—that it prevented TDCJ from carrying out the death warrant on the scheduled date—rather than on the legal theory under which the order was sought or granted.

The relief

The court concluded: “Accordingly, pursuant to this Court’s mandamus authority and effective immediately, Respondent’s Temporary Restraining Order is hereby vacated.” The relator had asked the court either to order the district judge to vacate the order or to vacate it itself; the court took the second course. It added that no motions for rehearing would be entertained and that “[t]he Clerk of this Court is instructed to issue mandate immediately.” The opinion was designated for publication.

What the opinion does not address

The opinion resolves only the question whether the district court’s order was subject to the Court of Criminal Appeals’ mandamus authority, and vacates that order. It recites the House committee’s subpoena as background but does not address the subpoena’s validity, enforceability or scope, or whether a legislative committee may compel the testimony of a person in TDCJ custody under a death warrant. It does not discuss separation of powers, and it does not address the merits of any claim the House members raised in Travis County. The opinion’s description of Roberson’s habeas history is limited to the dispositions of his applications; it does not revisit the merits of his claims.

Separate opinions

The per curiam opinion notes that Judge Newell filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Judges Richardson, Walker and McClure. The text of the dissenting opinion is not included in the per curiam opinion document, and this article does not describe its reasoning.

Status

The court vacated the temporary restraining order effective immediately, stated that no motions for rehearing would be entertained, and directed that mandate issue immediately. The opinion says nothing about what would follow, and it does not mention any proceeding in the Supreme Court of Texas.

The decision came on the day of the scheduled execution and was widely reported alongside other events that night. According to The Texas Tribune, hours after the Court of Criminal Appeals vacated the restraining order, the Supreme Court of Texas granted the House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence a temporary injunction barring TDCJ from impairing Roberson’s compliance with the committee’s subpoena, including by executing him, and the execution did not go forward as scheduled. The Dallas Morning News reported on October 20 that the Attorney General, on behalf of TDCJ, asked the Supreme Court of Texas to undo that injunction and that the court declined to grant the immediate relief requested.