Into the Foray of Novel Legal Arguments

In the case of The State of Texas v. Gary R. Walp, Cause No. F-80-11573-ML, before the 5th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas (1980), my court-appointed attorney persuaded me that the State possessed a compelling case against me. Consequently, it was advised that my most prudent course of action, given the potential sentence range of "5 to 99 years to life," would be to enter a plea of "guilty." So I did. 

The trial commenced with the sentencing phase, characterized by a dichotomy of testimonies, often referred to as “she said, he said.” There was no physical evidence supporting the allegation of rape. During the jury's deliberation regarding sentencing, the judge, acting sua sponte, withdrew my plea and entered a “not guilty” plea on my behalf. Subsequently, the judge reconvened the jury to provide them with this new development and inquired of each attorney whether they had any additional evidence to present. In a manner reminiscent of a comedic scene, the attorneys exchanged confused and uncertain glances before responding in the negative. 

What initially commenced as a trial focused on the determination of punishment subsequently evolved into a trial concerning guilt or innocence. The jury received appropriate instructions and was sent back to deliberate once again. Shortly thereafter, the jury submitted notes requesting critical testimony, which the court declined to provide. The jury foreman subsequently delivered a guilty verdict, "as charged in the indictment," resulting in a sentence of 35 years in prison, coinciding with the age of the victim.

Years later, I sought to contest my conviction under Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure through a habeas corpus action. My argument was predicated upon a "no evidence" theory, given that the trial commenced de novo following the judge's sua sponte motion and no evidence had been presented from that juncture. The prejudice arose from a jury that first received testimony concerning punishment mitigation, only to be instructed to recollect facts from witnesses' statements to determine guilt, despite the court's denials of jury notes requesting those vital statements. This represented my initial foray into "novel" legal arguments.