EX PARTE WILLIAM KEITH SPEER v. << (2025)

ORDER

This is a subsequent post-conviction application for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to the provisions of Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 11.071, § 5.¹

In October 2001, a jury convicted Applicant of capital murder for the strangling death of Gary Dickerson at the Telford Unit prison in 1997. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.03(a). The jury answered the special issues submitted under Article 37.071 in the State's favor, and the trial court set Applicant's punishment at death. See Art. 37.071, § 2(g). This Court affirmed the conviction and sentence on direct appeal. Speer v. State, No. AP-74,253 (Tex. Crim. App. Oct. 8, 2003) (not designated for publication). This Court also denied relief on the claims raised in Applicant's initial habeas application and dismissed his subsequent application as an abuse of the writ. Ex parte Speer, No. WR-59,101-01 (Tex. Crim. App. June 30, 2004) (not designated for publication); Ex parte Speer, No. WR-59,101-02 (Tex. Crim. App. Mar. 3, 2010) (not designated for publication).

In 2023, after his execution date had been set, Applicant filed this second subsequent habeas application. In compliance with Article 11.071, § 5(b)(1), the convicting court forwarded it to this Court. This Court stayed Applicant's execution but did not take further action on the application at that time.

In his fourth ground for relief, Applicant alleges that his trial counsel failed to investigate and present evidence during the sentencing phase of his trial related to his character, background, and moral culpability. Applicant contends that this failure deprived him of effective assistance of counsel. See Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003); Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (2005).

Applicant has alleged sufficient specific facts in this claim to make a prima facie showing that no rational juror would have answered one or more of the statutory special punishment issues in favor of the death penalty had the constitutional violation not occurred. See Article 11.071, § 5(a)(3). Thus, this Court has determined that further factual development is warranted. It is therefore ordered that this claim be remanded to the convicting court for a merits’ review. The remaining claims do not meet the requirements of Article 11.071, § 5(a) and should not be reviewed.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 30th DAY OF JULY, 2025.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Unless otherwise indicated, all references to Articles are to the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.

Per curiam.

Schenck, P.J., filed a concurring opinion. Yeary, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which Parker, J., joined. Finley, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which Parker, J., joined.