<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Texas Department of Criminal Justice on Texas Appeals Journal</title><link>https://texasappeals.org/topics/texas-department-of-criminal-justice/</link><description>Clinical descriptions of the Texas appellate decisions drawing the most press coverage.</description><generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Oct 2025 07:00:00 -0500</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://texasappeals.org/topics/texas-department-of-criminal-justice/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Court of Criminal Appeals Holds Convicting Court Lacked Jurisdiction Over Death-Row Inmate’s Constitutional Habeas Challenge to Execution Drugs</title><link>https://texasappeals.org/2025/10/ex-parte-speer-capital-habeas/</link><pubDate>Mon, 06 Oct 2025 07:00:00 -0500</pubDate><guid>https://texasappeals.org/2025/10/ex-parte-speer-capital-habeas/</guid><description>In a per curiam opinion, the court held that a Bowie County district court had no jurisdiction over a constitutional habeas application seeking to bar the Texas Department of Criminal Justice from using allegedly expired and fire-damaged pentobarbital in a scheduled execution, because such an injunction would function as a stay of execution that only the Court of Criminal Appeals may grant. The court did not reach the merits of the method-of-execution claims.</description></item><item><title>Fifth Circuit Vacates Capital Murder Conviction of Brittany Holberg, Holding State Court Unreasonably Applied Brady to Undisclosed Informant Evidence</title><link>https://texasappeals.org/2025/03/holberg-v-lumpkin-capital-habeas/</link><pubDate>Mon, 10 Mar 2025 07:00:00 -0500</pubDate><guid>https://texasappeals.org/2025/03/holberg-v-lumpkin-capital-habeas/</guid><description>A divided panel held that evidence the State did not disclose—that a jailhouse witness was a paid police informant—was favorable and material impeachment evidence under Brady v. Maryland, and that the state court’s contrary ruling was an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court law. Judge Duncan dissented on materiality.</description></item><item><title>Supreme Court of Texas Holds House Committee’s Subpoena Cannot Be Judicially Enforced to Cancel Roberson Execution</title><link>https://texasappeals.org/2024/11/in-re-texas-house-roberson-subpoena/</link><pubDate>Mon, 25 Nov 2024 07:00:00 -0600</pubDate><guid>https://texasappeals.org/2024/11/in-re-texas-house-roberson-subpoena/</guid><description>The court denied a Texas House committee’s petition, holding that the separation of powers does not permit judicial enforcement of a legislative subpoena that would require canceling a long-scheduled execution. The opinion states that the dispute has nothing to do with Robert Roberson’s guilt or innocence.</description></item><item><title>Court of Criminal Appeals Vacates Travis County Restraining Order That Had Blocked Robert Roberson’s Execution</title><link>https://texasappeals.org/2024/11/in-re-tdcj-ex-rel-paxton-roberson-subpoena/</link><pubDate>Mon, 11 Nov 2024 07:00:00 -0600</pubDate><guid>https://texasappeals.org/2024/11/in-re-tdcj-ex-rel-paxton-roberson-subpoena/</guid><description>In a per curiam opinion, the court held that a district court’s temporary restraining order enjoining the Texas Department of Criminal Justice from carrying out a death warrant had the effect of staying a scheduled execution and was subject to the court’s mandamus authority. The court vacated the order itself. Four judges dissented.</description></item></channel></rss>