Murderpedia

 

 

Juan Ignacio Blanco  

 

  MALE murderers

index by country

index by name   A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

  FEMALE murderers

index by country

index by name   A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

 

 

 
   

Murderpedia has thousands of hours of work behind it. To keep creating new content, we kindly appreciate any donation you can give to help the Murderpedia project stay alive. We have many
plans and enthusiasm to keep expanding and making Murderpedia a better site, but we really
need your help for this. Thank you very much in advance.

   

 

 

Tommie Collins HUGHES

 
 
 
 
 

 

 

 

 
 
 
Classification: Murderer
Characteristics: Robbery
Number of victims: 2
Date of murders: August 13, 1997
Date of arrest: Next day
Date of birth: August 15, 1974
Victims profile: Foluke Erinkitola (female, 25) and Roxanne Mendoza (female, 29)
Method of murder: Shooting (automatic pistol)
Location: Dallas County, Texas, USA
Status: Executed by lethal injection in Texas on March 15, 2006
 
 
 
 
 

United States Court of Appeals
For the Fifth Circuit

 
opinion 04-70014
 
 
 
 
 
 

Summary:

Hughes suggested to his girlfriend, Alina Henry, and his cousin, Derric English, that they rob someone.

The trio drove to a Dallas movie theater parking lot, where Hughes and the other man approached Foluke Erinkitola and Roxanne Mendoza, who were walking to their car.

Using an automatic pistol, Hughes shot and killed Erinkitola and Mendoza, and the two men took the victims’ purses, wallets, jewelry, cell phone and pager.

Unfortunately for Hughes, police were conducting an undercover operation in the theater parking lot and later stopped the vehicle, arresting the three.

In the car, police found the victims’ belongings and discovered the murder weapon beneath Hughes’seat. Blood from one of the victims found on Hughes’clothing suggested that he shot her at close range.

The day after the shooting, in a telephone conversation with a cousin, Hughes was asked why he had killed the two women. Hughes said the two victims could have identified them.

Hughes was charged with both killings but only tried for Erinkitola's death. His defense attorneys presented no witnesses at his trial.

At a separate trial, English was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to 40 years in prison. Henry pleaded to a lesser charge of aggravated robbery in exchange for her testimony against both men. She was sentenced to 11 years imprisonment.

Citations:

Smith v. Dretke, 412 F.3d 582 (5th Cir. 2005) (Habeas)
Hughes v. Dretke, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2004 WL 549480 (N.D.Tex. 2004) (Habeas)
Hughes v. State, 24 S.W.3d 833 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000)

Final Meal:

Six pieces of fried chicken with hot sauce, six jalapeno peppers, French fries, four buttered rolls, two large sodas and two menthol cigarettes.

Final Words:

"I love my family. You all stay strong. Watch over each other. Stay strong. I love you. I love you. It's my hour. It's my hour. I love you. Stay strong."

ClarkProsecutor.org

 
 

Texas Department of Criminal Justice

Inmate: Hughes, Tommie
Date of Birth: 08/15/74
TDCJ#: 999273
Date Received: 6/18/98
Education: 12 years
Occupation: Laborer
Date of Offense: 08/13/97
County of Conviction: Dallas County
Race: Black
Gender: Male
Hair Color: Black
Eye Color: Black
Height: 5 ft 07 in
Weight: 195

 
 

Texas Attorney General

Media Advisory

Wednesday, March 8, 2006 - Tommie Hughes Scheduled For Execution

AUSTIN – Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott offers the following information about Tommie Collins Hughes, who is scheduled to be executed after 6 p.m. Wednesday, March 15, 2006.

On May 7, 1998, Tommie Collins Hughes was sentenced to die for the robbery-related murder of Foluke Erinkitola. A summary of the evidence presented at trial follows.

FACTS OF THE CRIME

On the evening of August 13, 1997, Hughes suggested to his girlfriend and another man that they rob someone. The trio drove to a Dallas movie theater parking lot, where Hughes and the other man approached Foluke Erinkitola and Roxanne Mendoza, who were walking to their car. Using an automatic pistol, Hughes shot and killed Erinkitola and Mendoza, and the two men took the victims’ purses, wallets, jewelry, cell phone and pager.

As the trio left the parking lot, police who had been conducting an undercover operation in the theater parking lot tailed the car and later stopped the vehicle, arresting the three, after receiving a report of the shootings.

In the car, police found the victims’ belongings and discovered the murder weapon beneath Hughes’seat. Blood from one of the victims found on Hughes’clothing suggested that he shot her at close range.

The day after the shooting, in a telephone conversation with a cousin, Hughes was asked why he had killed the two women. Hughes said the two victims could have identified them.

EVIDENCE RELATED TO PUNISHMENT

The State presented evidence that while in the Marine Corps, due to disciplinary problems and domestic abuse, Hughes was passed over several times for promotion.

Once, he was accused of stealing the personal property of a fellow Marine. In June 1994, he pleaded guilty to charges of possession of a false identification card and marijuana use. He was sentenced to 60 days incarceration and received a bad-conduct discharge.

Allegations that Hughes abused his wife led to police investigations and at least two arrests in April 1994 and May 1995.

In January 1996. a convenience store clerk was killed during a robbery. Hughes bragged to friends that he killed the clerk.

In January 1997, Hughes was arrested in Grand Prairie, Texas, after he resisted arrest while police were investigating domestic disturbance involving his girlfriend.

In March 1997, Hughes was arrested by the highway patrol for driving while intoxicated. At the jail, Hughes tried to assault one of the deputies.

In June 1997, Grand Prairie police arrested Hughes after a domestic disturbance report involving his girlfriend. Hughes also was linked to another armed robbery at the same theater parking lot four days before the shooting.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

  • Oct. 1, 1997 – A Dallas County grand jury indicted Hughes for the capital murder of Foluke Erinkitola.

  • May 1, 1998 – A jury found Hughes guilty of capital murder.

  • May 7, 1998 – After a punishment hearing, the trial court assessed a death sentence.

  • Oct. 18, 1999 – In the trial court, Hughes filed a state application for writ of habeas corpus.

  • Apr. 12, 2000 – The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Hughes’ conviction and sentence.

  • Sept. 13, 2000 – The Court of Criminal Appeals denied habeas corpus relief.

  • Nov. 6, 2000 – The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari review.

  • Mar. 14, 2001 – Hughes filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in a U.S. federal district court.

  • Mar. 19, 2004 – The federal district court denied habeas corpus relief.

  • June 10, 2005 – The 5th Circuit Court denied Hughes’s application for a Certificate of Appealability.

  • Feb. 21, 2006 – The Supreme Court denied Hughes’s petition for certiorari with U.S. Supreme Court.

 
 

Ex-Marine executed for two slayings

5th prisoner put to death in Texas this year

By Juan A. Lozano - Houston Chronicle

AP March 15, 2006

HUNTSVILLE - A former Marine was executed Wednesday night for the shooting deaths of two women during a robbery outside a northwest Dallas theater in August 1997.

"I love my family," Tommie Hughes, 31, said in his final statement. "You all stay strong. Watch over each other," he told his mother, grandmother and some friends as they watched from a nearby window. Hughes kept repeating "I love you" and looking at his family until the drugs took effect. He said nothing about his victims, but at one point turned his head and stared at their relatives.

He was pronounced dead at 6:23 p.m., eight minutes after the dose began. Hughes was the fifth prisoner put to death this year in Texas and the first of four scheduled this month in the nation's busiest capital punishment state.

Hughes was executed for the murder of Foluke Erinkitola. He robbed and then shot in the head Erinkitola and her friend Roxanne Mendoza in their car after the women had watched a movie.

During the trial, a cousin testified Hughes snickered when asked why he killed the women and said they could have identified him. Hughes denied he planned the robbery or killed the women. "The picture that they painted of me as being the mastermind, it's just totally off the rock," he said.

The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles on Monday rejected requests to commute Hughes' sentence to life or to issue a 90-day reprieve. A federal judge in Houston and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied appeals to stop the execution on grounds that the lethal drugs are unconstitutionally cruel. About an hour before the execution, the U.S. Supreme Court also turned down an appeal.

Erinkitola, 25, who was from the Chicago area and was a student at the University of Illinois, had been in the Dallas area on a summer internship with GTE Corp. Mendoza, 29, originally from San Francisco, also worked for GTE. "They were very bright girls with tremendous futures ahead of them," said Toby Shook, who was lead prosecutor in the case for the Dallas County District Attorney's Office.

Hughes said he was talking to the women when his girlfriend at the time, Alina Henry, shot them in a jealous rage. Shook said Hughes, whom he called "a pathological liar ... completely void of remorse," planned the robbery and shot both women. Hughes' cousin, Derric English, helped rob the women while Henry was the getaway driver.

Hughes was 22 at the time, while English and Henry were 19. All three were caught after a short chase by officers who were in the parking lot on an undercover operation.

Hughes was charged with both killings but only tried for Erinkitola's death. His defense attorneys presented no witnesses at his trial. At a separate trial, English was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to 40 years in prison. Henry pleaded to a lesser charge of aggravated robbery in exchange for her testimony against both men. She was sentenced to 11 years.

 
 

Texas man executed for robbery and murder

Reuter News

March 15, 2006

HUNTSVILLE, Texas (Reuters) - A Texas man was put to death by lethal injection on Wednesday for the 1997 robbery and murder of a Dallas woman in a movie theater parking lot. Tommie Hughes, 32, was condemned for killing Foulke Erinkitola, 25, after he and a cousin robbed Erinkitola and her friend, Roxanne Mendoza, 29.

Hughes waved an automatic pistol at the women during the robbery and shot them each in the head while his cousin was walking to a car where Hughes' girlfriend waited, witnesses testified at his 1998 trial for Erinkitola's murder. Hughes maintained his innocence and claimed his girlfriend shot the two women in a jealous rage while he and his cousin were talking to them.

In a final statement on Wednesday night while strapped to a gurney in the death chamber, Hughes spoke to his family. "I love my family," he said. "You all stay strong. Watch over each other. Stay strong. I love you. I love you. It's my hour. It's my hour. I love you. Stay strong."

Hughes was the fifth person executed in Texas this year and the 360th since the state resumed capital punishment in 1982, six years after the U.S. Supreme Court lifted a national death penalty ban. Both totals lead the nation.

For his final meal, Hughes requested six pieces of fried chicken with hot sauce, six jalapeno peppers, French fries, four buttered rolls, two large sodas and two menthol cigarettes.

An additional 15 executions are scheduled in Texas through August.

 
 

Texas Execution Information Center by David Carson

Txexecutions.org

Tommie Collins Hughes, 31, was executed by lethal injection on 15 March 2006 in Huntsville, Texas for the murder of two women during a robbery.

On 13 August 1997, Hughes, then 22, and Derric English, 19, approached two women in the parking lot of a Dallas theater. The women, Foluke Erinkitola, 25 and Roxanne Mendoza, 29 were walking to their car when Hughes shot and killed them with an automatic pistol.

Hughes and English then took the women's purses, wallets, jewelry, cell phones, and pagers. They then left in a car driven by Hughes' girlfriend, Alicia Henry, 19.

The trio was caught after a short chase by police officers who were in the parking lot conducting an unrelated undercover operation. Police recovered the murder weapon and stolen items from the car. Hughes had blood on his clothing at the time of his arrest. At the trial, Hughes' cousin testified that the day after the shooting, Hughes said that he killed the women because they could have identified him.

Hughes had a lengthy record of violence. After a court-martial, he received a bad-conduct discharge from the U.S. Marine Corps. In April 1994 and May 1995, Hughes was arrested for abusing his wife. He was arrested again in January 1997 over a domestic disturbance incident involving his girlfriend.

He was also charged with resisting arrest in that incident. In March 1997, he attacked a sheriff's deputy after being arrested for driving while intoxicated. He was arrested on another domestic disturbance charge in June 1997.

Prosecutors also presented evidence that Hughes had robbed three other people at gunpoint in the same parking lot four days before the double homicide. In addition, Hughes was indicted for the January 1996 robbery and murder of convenience store owner Jaffar Ali.

A jury convicted Hughes in May 1998 of the capital murder of Foluke Erinkitola, and sentenced him to death. He was also charged, but not tried, for Roxanne Mendoza's murder. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence in April 2000. All of his subsequent appeals in state and federal court were denied.

Derric Dewayne English was convicted of capital murder and given a life sentence. Alicia Lavone Henry pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery in exchange for her testimony against both men. She was sentenced to eleven years in prison.

In an interview from death row, Hughes admitted being there when the women were killed, but denied that he killed them or planned the robbery. He said that he was talking to the women in the parking lot when Henry flew into a jealous rage and shot them. "The picture that they painted of me as being the mastermind, it's just totally off the rock," Hughes said. "There's no way I can understand the loss their families feel. But I'm not the one who did it."

Hughes expressed love to his family in this last statement at his execution. He looked at, but did not speak to, the relatives of his victims. The lethal injection was started, and he was pronounced dead at 6:23 p.m.

 
 

National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty

Tommie Hughes, TX - March 15

Do Not Execute Tommie Hughes!

Tommie Hughes, a 31-year-old black man faces a March 15 execution for robbing and murdering two black women in a Dallas parking lot. Police had been watching the parking lot for signs of theft when they noticed Hughes and another man, Michael English, hurriedly walking toward their car.

Hughes had a “large bulge” under his shirt. The two got in the car and sped away, at which point an unmarked police car began to follow them. When police in the parking lot found two dead bodies, Hughes and English were stopped and arrested.

Hughes was found guilty of murder and ought to have been sentenced according to that charge. However, the specifics of his case make one wonder whether he was actually sentenced to death based on a crime for which he was never found guilty. During the sentencing phase of the trial, prosecutors introduced evidence of an “unadjudicated extraneous offense” against Hughes.

This means that the prosecutors linked Hughes to an alleged crime other than the one for which he was being sentenced. The concern is that this presumes Hughes’s guilt in a crime without even trying him.

Not only was he being sentenced based on his involvement in a crime for which he received no trial, but the prosecutor wasn’t even required to prove Hughes’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in this trial. As far as this unadjudicated extraneous offense is concerned, Hughes wasn’t extended the customary “innocence until proven guilty.”

This kind of evidence sidesteps one of the most fundamental rights in our criminal justice system. By presuming Tommie Hughes to be guilty of this extraneous offense, we rob him of the basic fairness guaranteed to everybody in a court of law. For this reason, it is imperative that we do not execute Tommie Hughes!

 
 

Man gets death for theater slaying

Victim's brother calls killer 'a disgrace'

By Michael Saul - Dallas Morning News

May 8, 1998

A Dallas County jury sentenced Tommie Collins Hughes to death Thursday in the murder of a 25-year-old woman last summer during a robbery at a Dallas movie theater.

The jury took an hour and 40 minutes to return a death sentence against Mr. Hughes after convicting him last week in the Aug. 13 shooting death of GTE intern Foluke Erinkitola at the AMC Grand theater in northwest Dallas. Her friend and colleague at GTE, Roxanne Mendoza, 29, also was killed in the attack.

"You're a coward. You're an idiot. You're a disgrace," said Ms. Erinkitola's brother, Adekunle Erinkitola, addressing Mr. Hughes from the witness stand after the verdict. "You must suffer the consequences for your actions."

Mr. Erinkitola, 32, also lashed out at Mr. Hughes' family. Questioning the Hughes family's claim that they raised the defendant to respect the law and the Bible, Mr. Erinkitola said, "Where were you when he murdered Foluke and Roxanne? . . . Did you support him then?"

Mr. Hughes' family, looking anguished and spent, left the courtroom without commenting. Paul Johnson, Mr. Hughes' attorney, said his client feels "a lot of remorse" and that his family doesn't deserve the criticism.

Mr. Hughes opted during both phases of the trial not to testify. A notice of appeal has been filed. "I don't know that anything is served by making Mr. Hughes' family the scapegoat. I feel sorry for them. They are good people. They truly are," Mr. Johnson said. "It seems now with this verdict and with this sentence that the Hughes family is also going to lose a loved one, and we feel that is just a tragedy for everyone involved."

Assistant District Attorney Toby Shook, the lead prosecutor, said he was pleased with the jury's decision. The jurors - several of whom appeared teary-eyed when the verdict was announced - left the courthouse without commenting. "I am relieved as a member of this society that he is going to be executed," Mr. Shook said. "It was a rock-solid case. The police did some great work out there. We had some great detectives that caught him almost virtually in the act."

Mr. Hughes' co-defendants - Derric D. English, his cousin, and Alina T. Henry, his former girlfriend - are scheduled to stand trial later. Mr. English participated in the fatal robbery, and Ms. Henry drove the getaway car, prosecutors said.

Prosecutors have not decided whether they will waive the death penalty in Mr. English's case. Ms. Henry, 20, testified last week against Mr. Hughes as part of an agreement with prosecutors that allows her to plead guilty to the lesser charge of aggravated robbery.

That agreement does not specify what Ms. Henry's punishment will be. Ms. Henry told the jury that she, Mr. Hughes and Mr. English went to the theater to rob someone. As they drove away from the theater, Ms. Henry said, Mr. Hughes asked whether they could smell gunpowder on his hands.

Prosecutors said the evidence in the case overwhelmingly pointed to Mr. Hughes' guilt. The victims' possessions were found in the car the defendants used; Ms. Mendoza's blood was found on Mr. Hughes' clothing and shoes. Mr. Hughes' cousin testified that Mr. Hughes admitted during a phone call from jail that they had to kill the women, whom he referred to as "bitches," because they could identify them.

"Roxanne and Foluke are not bitches," Mr. Erinkitola told Mr. Hughes in his statement. "You are the only bitch here." Ms. Mendoza's fiance, Richard Palenchar, said Mr. Hughes is a coward. "Hughes has absolutely no regard for anyone.

His family seems to be convinced that he has regard for his immediate family members. But it is absolutely clear that if he didn't know who they were, he would have killed any member of his family for pocket change," said Mr. Palenchar, 37. "He is a vile animal."

Mr. Hughes' death sentence may be a payment to society, Mr. Palenchar said, but it is not a payment to the families. During the punishment phase, prosecutors painted Mr. Hughes as a ruthless killer, a robber and spouse abuser. Mr. Hughes received a bad-conduct discharge from the U.S. Marine Corps after he was convicted at a special court-martial in June 1994 of a drug offense and possessing false ID.

Mr. Hughes, prosecutors said, had killed before the two slayings at the movie theater. Last week, a grand jury indicted Mr. Hughes on a capital murder charge in connection with the January 1996 shooting death of Jaffar Ali, a Dallas convenience store owner.

Mr. Ali's daughter, Farzana Nasser, said Thursday she is pleased that Mr. Hughes has been sentenced to die. "I'm just glad that he is off the street and that he is going to be dying pretty soon, I hope, and won't be killing anybody anymore and won't destroy any more families," said Ms. Nasser, 31.

Mr. Hughes' family begged the jury this week to spare his life. They told the jurors that the man they are hearing about in this trial is not the relative they know and love. Family members said he deserves an opportunity to be rehabilitated.

Ms. Erinkitola and Ms. Mendoza were killed as they returned to their car after watching the movie Picture Perfect. Mr. Hughes and his co-defendants were arrested shortly after the slayings at an Oak Cliff gas station. Undercover officers in the parking lot saw Mr. Hughes and Mr. English walking back to their car. An officer in an unmarked car followed them to the gas station.

In his closing argument, Mr. Hughes' other attorney, Paul Brauchle, told the jurors he could do nothing to change their minds if they already had put on their "killing clothes." He argued that Mr. Hughes should be sentenced to life in prison because he doesn't pose a further threat to society behind bars.

Mr. Shook told the jury that Mr. Hughes deserves to die because of the brutality of the crime, his total lack of remorse and the innocence of his victims. "You 12 people are the only people who can stop Tommie Collins Hughes, and we will ask you to do that based on the evidence in this case. Stop Tommie Collins Hughes," he said.

Although Mr. Hughes was convicted only in Ms. Erinkitola's murder, the Mendoza family said that was just a technicality. "As the father of Roxanne, I would have requested the state if I could be the one to inject the injection," said Ms. Mendoza's father, Nonoy Mendoza, 62. "I think for the rest of our life, it will never be the same again without Roxanne."

 
 

Homepage Tommie Hughes (buried-alive.com)

"Who Am I”

My life has been
a riddle
wrapped in
a question
locked inside
an enigma & . . . .
as it turns out,
I don’t feel the need
to shed any light
on it
just yet . . . .
& . . . . so,
the question
remains -

America tries to justify the consolidation of a vast prison industrial complex, which is not only a mechanism to convert public tax money into profits for private corporations but also an essential element of modern neo-liberal capitalism that serves two purposes :the first, to neutralize & contain huge segments of potentially rebellious sectors of the population…& the second, to sustain a system of super-exploitation where mainly Black & Latino captives are imprisoned in white rural, overseer communities....

Why is this so? Why is it, I wonder, do I warrant such overwhelming attention? What did I do or what do I represent that is such a threat to society that justifies the need to end my life? ...especially in such a cruel & inhumane manner as to be “put under” like some rabid & delirious animal? I think not. If a person was to get to know me, I truly believe that one would discover a man who has nothing in common with the hostile representations of the state of Texas that refuses to expire. How could I be deemed as a continual threat to society when I have never been a threat to society to begin with? No past record or criminal history...nothing. Well ,I’ll be honest...I did have some unpaid tickets, but I served about 3-4 days in jail to pay them off voluntarily. Does that count? As you continue to absorb the spirit of my words, you will discover a very compassionate human being with an unswerving commitment justice that travels easily across racial & ethnic lines, in & out of prison & across oceans & time. I desire to make my position known to all of you who have support lines & associations with family, friends, or loved ones incarcerated...& most especially those of you who are sequestered in the growing global network of the most outrageous form of economic exploitation in existence: prisons & jails... those of us who live & fight for our lives to live within the worlds of concrete & steel...within this world.

At a time when optimism has receded from our political vocab, I offer my spirit soakers invaluable gifts - INSPIRATION & HOPE. The intention of my words are to remind you, as Walter Benjamin once observed, that it is only for the sake of those without hope that hope is given to us. Maybe the dialogs within BURIED ALIVE will provide a rare opportunity to see behind the carefully orchestrated distortions of fact by the state of Texas concerning my life as well as others in other states throughout this nation. That said,……..enter MADDNEZZ !! * Casper *

 
 

Hughes v. State, 24 S.W.3d 833 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000)

Defendant was convicted in the 204th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Mark Nancarrow, J., of double capital murder, and death was imposed. On automatic direct appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals, Mansfield, J., held that: (1) defendant suffered no harm and was not deprived of qualified counsel, despite trial court's failure to comply with statutory requirement that it post qualifications for appointed counsel who represent defendants accused of capital murder and list of qualified attorneys; (2) regardless of whether defendant's arrest was illegal, he could not claim violation of any legitimate, reasonable expectation of privacy as result of search and seizure of vehicle in which he was passenger or other occupants; (3) police had satisfactory proof to believe that occupants of car they were pursuing had just committed double murder/robbery and that escape was imminent, and thus warrantless arrest of defendant, who had been in car, was justified; (4) trial court has discretion to decide whether state must voice both challenge for cause or peremptory challenge before defendant, or that both sides issue any challenges for cause before state first lodges peremptory challenge; (5) trial court's refusal to conduct in camera examinations of individual jurors after allegations surfaced that state engaged in improper jury communications was not abuse of discretion; (6) defendant was not entitled to relief based on complaint that state failed to provide timely notice of intent to introduce evidence of unadjudicated, extraneous offense, at punishment stage; and (7) defendant was not entitled to proposed instruction submitted during punishment stage, which would have ordered jury to disregard evidence connecting defendant with unadjusted, extraneous murder. Meyers, J., concurred in the result with note. Johnson, J., concurred in result.

MANSFIELD, J., delivered the opinion of the Court in which McCORMICK, P.J., KELLER, PRICE, HOLLAND, WOMACK, and KEASLER, J.J., joined.

Appellant, Tommie Collins Hughes, was charged with capital murder committed in Dallas County on or about August 13, 1997. See Tex. Pen.Code § 19.03(a)(2). Appellant was accused of shooting and robbing two women in the parking lot of a theater in north Dallas.

A jury found appellant guilty, and its answers to the special punishment issues necessitated that a sentence of death be imposed by the trial court. Art. 37.071, §§ 2(b)(1), (e), & (g). [FN1] Direct appeal to this Court is automatic pursuant to Article 37.071, § 2(h). Appellant presents fourteen points of error for this Court's consideration, and we shall address the points of error as they occurred at trial.

Considered as a whole, the particular facts of this case, as they were elicited by the State at trial, demonstrate there was satisfactory proof that a crime had been committed and that the individuals arrested shortly after the crime occurred were responsible.

The theater where the crime occurred had experienced a rash of robberies and burglaries in the recent past, and law enforcement officers had staked out the area with specific hopes of catching those responsible.

During the evening in question, undercover officers noticed appellant and his partner, Michael English, as the two walked through the parking lot toward the theater building.

Approximately ten minutes later, both men were observed walking quickly back toward their car, a Mercury Tracer. Appellant was twenty to thirty feet behind English. English appeared to be hunched over, concealing what was described as a "large bulge" beneath his shirt. This "bulge" had not been observed earlier.

After both men entered the car, the driver, who had never left the vehicle, quickly accelerated, exiting the parking lot at a high rate of speed, and continued onto the highway reaching speeds of ninety miles an hour. To the undercover officers, these actions, under the existing circumstances, indicated the two men may have just burglarized a parked motor vehicle. One officer, in an unmarked vehicle, began a clandestine pursuit, maintaining a safe distance so as not to arouse the suspect's suspicion.

The officers remaining at the theater searched the parking lot for signs of a possible burglary. Within minutes, theater patrons came upon the two victims, both apparently dead of gunshot wounds. Authorities were notified, and the occupants of the Mercury Tracer then became capital murder suspects.

By viewing the totality of the circumstances, there was satisfactory proof that a crime had been committed and the occupants of the Mercury Tracer were responsible. See Dejarnette v. State, 732 S.W.2d at 351.

We determine now whether there was satisfactory proof that appellant was about to escape, and there was insufficient opportunity to obtain an arrest warrant. Information of the crime and its possible suspects was immediately dispatched over the police radio.

The undercover officer kept the speeding Mercury Tracer within his sight until a marked police unit intervened and occupied a position directly behind, and within obvious view of, the fleeing vehicle. The officer did not, however, activate the unit's emergency lights at this time. The suspect vehicle eventually exited the highway and pulled into a gas station in south Dallas.

Appellant exited and appeared as though he was preparing to activate the gas pump. The pursuing unit pulled in behind the suspect vehicle, activated its emergency lights, and, almost immediately, other marked units converged on the scene. Appellant was ordered onto the ground and arrested. The remaining occupants of the car were ordered to exit the vehicle, and they, too, were placed under arrest.

In points of error eleven and twelve, appellant claims a myriad of state and federal constitutional violations "because of the impossibility of simultaneously restricting the jury's discretion to impose the death penalty while also allowing the jury unlimited discretion to consider all evidence militating against imposition of the death penalty." To support his position, appellant quotes extensively from Justice Blackmun's dissent in Callins v. Collins, 510 U.S. 1141, 114 S.Ct. 1127, 127 L.Ed.2d 435 (1994). This argument, too, has been addressed and overruled by this Court. See, e.g., Shannon v. State, 942 S.W.2d 591, 600 (Tex.Crim.App.1996) (Texas capital sentencing scheme does not create the paradoxical commands of concern to Justice Blackmun); Lawton v. State, 913 S.W.2d 542, 558 (Tex.Crim.App.1995), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 826, 117 S.Ct. 88, 136 L.Ed.2d 44 (1996). We overrule the eleventh and twelfth points of error. Appellant's final two points of error contend the "cumulative effect" of these alleged constitutional violations denied him due process and due course of law as guaranteed by the Texas and United States constitutions. Having found no constitutional violations, however, no "cumulative" harm could have occurred. Points of error thirteen and fourteen are overruled.

Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

 
 

Hughes v. Dretke, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2004 WL 549480 (N.D.Tex. 2004) (Habeas)

LINDSAY, J.
Petitioner Tommie Collins Hughes ("Petitioner"), by and through his counsel of record, has filed an application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. For the reasons stated herein, the court denies the application.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

In August 1997, two women were shot and killed during a robbery at a theater parking lot in Dallas, Texas. Petitioner was later convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. Hughes v. State, 24 S.W.3d 833 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 980, 121 S.Ct. 430, 148 L.Ed.2d 438 (2000). Petitioner also filed an application for state post-conviction relief. The application was denied in an unpublished order. Ex parte Hughes, No. 46,344-01 (Tex.Crim.App. Sep. 13, 2000). Petitioner then filed this action in federal court on September 18, 2000. Petitioner raises eight issues in 12 separate grounds for relief. Succinctly stated, Petitioner complains that: (1) he received ineffective assistance of counsel (Grounds Nos. 1 and 11); (2) the trial court allowed the state to exercise a peremptory strike against a prospective juror who already had been accepted by the defense (Ground No. 2); (3) the trial court refused to allow voir dire, evidence, or argument regarding parole eligibility (Ground No. 3); (4) evidence of an unadjudicated extraneous offense was admitted during the punishment phase of the trial, despite the lack of timely notice by the state of its intention to use evidence of an unadjudicated extraneous offense and the failure to prove the unadjudicated extraneous offense beyond a reasonable doubt (Ground Nos. 4, 5, and 6); (5) the Texas death penalty scheme is unconstitutional (Ground Nos. 7 and 8); (6) the trial court deprived him of the opportunity to investigate possible jury misconduct (Ground No. 9); (7) the trial court failed to suppress certain evidence seized without a warrant or probable cause (Ground No. 10); and (8) the cumulative effect of these constitutional errors violated his right to a fair trial (Ground No. 12).

Although the circumstances described above would justify the search of all areas of the vehicle within the reach of passengers, the search also was authorized by Alina Henry, the driver in control of the vehicle. (47 St. Rep. R. at 75, 241-44; State's Trial Ex. 36). Moreover, since all occupants of the car were arrested, the evidence obtained from the vehicle would have been subject to an inventory search. See South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 372-76, 96 S.Ct. 3092, 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976); United States v. Andrews, 22 F.3d 1328, 1333-34 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 941, 115 S.Ct. 346, 130 L.Ed.2d 302 (1994); United States v. Prescott, 599 F.2d 103, 105 (5th Cir.1979). Therefore, the doctrine of inevitable discovery would have supported the admission of this evidence. See Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 444, 104 S.Ct. 2501, 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984). Any alleged deficiency by trial counsel in failing to establish Petitioner's standing to challenge this search was not prejudicial under Strickland.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons stated herein, Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied, and this case is dismissed with prejudice.

 
 

Smith v. Dretke, 412 F.3d 582 (5th Cir. 2005) (Habeas)

Background: State prisoner who was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death petitioned for writ of habeas corpus. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, 2004 WL 549480, Sam A. Lindsay, J., denied the petition and petitioner's application for a certificate of appealability (COA). Petitioner appealed.

Holdings: The Court of Appeals, Benavides, Circuit Judge, held that:
(1) denial of claim that petitioner's lawyers were presumptively ineffective because standards for appointment in death penalty cases, together with a list of qualified attorneys, were not posted in the district clerk's office as required by state statute, did not warrant issuance of COA;
(2) denial of claim of violation of state law governing peremptory strikes in capital cases did not warrant issuance of COA;
(3) denial of petitioner's claim that his rights under the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments were violated when the trial court refused to allow voir dire, evidence, or argument regarding minimum parole eligibility, did not warrant issuance of COA;
(4) denial of petitioner's claim that his right to due process was violated when the jury was allowed to consider evidence of an unadjudicated capital murder at the sentencing phase without requiring the state to prove the offense beyond a reasonable doubt did not warrant issuance of COA;
(5) denial of petitioner's claim that the Texas death penalty scheme violated his right to due process and his right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment did not warrant issuance of COA;
(6) claim that petitioner was denied due process when the state trial court failed to conduct an in camera examination of the jurors to determine whether the state had engaged in improper jury communication was procedurally barred; and
(7) federal court could not grant habeas relief based on an alleged Fourth Amendment violation where the state provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of the issue. Certificate of appealability denied.

BENAVIDES, Circuit Judge:

Petitioner Tommie Collins Hughes was convicted in Texas state court of capital murder and sentenced to death. Hughes filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The district court subsequently denied the petition. The district court also denied Petitioner a certificate of appealability ("COA"). Petitioner now requests a COA from this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). For the reasons that follow, Petitioner's Application for a Certificate of Appealability from Denial of a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied.

I. BACKGROUND

On August 13, 1997, Petitioner robbed and killed two women in the parking lot of a theater in north Dallas, Texas. After Petitioner was convicted of this crime and his sentence was imposed, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence on direct appeal, and the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari review.

Petitioner subsequently filed a state application for a writ of habeas corpus. Without holding an evidentiary hearing on Petitioner's claims, the state trial-level habeas court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law and recommended to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals that Petitioner's application be denied.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals adopted the trial judge's findings and conclusions and denied Petitioner's application. Petitioner then filed a federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus in March 2001. The federal district court denied relief and also denied Petitioner's application for a COA. Petitioner filed a timely notice of appeal. Petitioner now appeals the district court's denial of a COA.

Petitioner raises eight issues in twelve separate grounds for relief. Succinctly stated, Petitioner complains that: (1) the trial court allowed the state to exercise a peremptory strike against a prospective juror who already had been accepted by the defense (Ground 2); (2) the trial court *588 refused to allow voir dire, evidence, or argument regarding parole eligibility (Ground 3); (3) evidence of an unadjudicated extraneous offense was admitted during the sentencing phase of trial, despite the lack of timely notice by the state of its intention to use evidence of an unadjudicated extraneous offense and its failure to prove the unadjudicated extraneous offense beyond a reasonable doubt (Grounds 4, 5, and 6); (4) the Texas death penalty scheme is unconstitutional (Grounds 7 and 8); (5) the trial court deprived him of the opportunity to investigate possible jury misconduct (Ground 9); (6) the trial court failed to suppress certain evidence seized without a warrant or probable cause (Ground 10); (7) he received ineffective assistance of counsel (Grounds 1, 4, 6, and 11); and (8) the cumulative effect of these constitutional errors violated his right to a fair trial (Ground 12).

In his fifth ground for relief, Petitioner contends that his right to due process under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments was violated when the jury was allowed to consider evidence of an unadjudicated capital murder at the sentencing phase of trial without requiring the state to prove the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

In reviewing Petitioner's fifth ground for relief, the district court concluded that this claim is foreclosed by Teague because the Supreme Court has never held that the federal constitution requires a state to prove an extraneous offense beyond a reasonable doubt. See Harris v. Johnson, 81 F.3d 535, 541 (5th Cir.) ("[T]he use of evidence of unadjudicated extraneous offenses, at the sentencing phase of Texas capital murder trials, does not implicate constitutional concerns."), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1227, 116 S.Ct. 1863, 134 L.Ed.2d 961 (1996).

Petitioner does not cite any authority in existence as of the date his conviction became final for Teague purposes, November 6, 2000, which would have compelled reasonable jurists on that date to accept Petitioner's fifth ground for relief. Moreover, neither of the two exceptions to the non-retroactivity principle announced in Teague applies to Petitioner's claim. Therefore, we find that reasonable jurists could not debate the district court's conclusion that Petitioner's fifth ground for relief is Teague-barred, nor could jurists conclude that this claim deserves encouragement to proceed further, and we decline to issue a COA on this claim. F. Future dangerousness special issue claim

IV. CONCLUSION

Petitioner has not shown that reasonable jurists could disagree with the district court's denial of any of his claims, nor could jurists conclude that any of Petitioner's claims deserve encouragement to proceed further. Accordingly, we deny Petitioner's Application for a Certificate of Appealability from Denial of a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. DENIED.

 
 


Tommie Collins Hughes

 

The victims
 

Foluke Erinkitola and Roxanne Mendoza.

 

 

 
 
 
 
home last updates contact