Texas Department of Criminal Justice

Texas Attorney General Media Advisory

AUSTIN – Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott offers the following information about Richard Hinojosa, who is scheduled to be executed after 6 p.m. Thursday, August 17, 2006. In July 1997, the 44-year-old Hinojosa was convicted and sentenced to death for murdering Terry Wright in San Antonio. A summary of the evidence presented at trial follows.

FACTS OF THE CRIME

On the evening of May 10, 1994, Richard Hinojosa broke into the home of his next-door neighbor, Terry Wright, and kidnaped, raped and stabbed the dental office manager numerous times. After cutting the telephone wires to Wright’s home, Hinojosa entered the 29-year-old victim’s house, engaged in a violent struggle with Wright and forced the woman into her vehicle and took her to a secluded area known for illegal trash dumping. Once there, Hinojosa raped Wright and fatally stabbed her 11 times in the back and chest. Hinojosa dumped Wright’s nude body in a field and covered her with grass. Hinojosa was linked to the crime through both fingerprint and DNA evidence.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Aug. 15, 1995 -- A Bexar County grand jury indicted Hinojosa for capital murder.
July 25, 1997 — After a jury found Hinojosa guilty of capital murder, Hinjosa sentenced to death.
Oct. 27, 1999 -– Hinojosa’s conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal by the Court of Criminal Appeals.
July 20, 1999 -- Hinojosa filed a state writ application in the trial court.
Jan. 31, 2001 -- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied Hinojosa’s application for state habeas relief.
July 13, 2001 -- Hinojosa filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the federal district court.
Sept. 30, 2004 -- The federal district court denied habeas relief and a certificate of appealability.
Jan. 25, 2005 -- Hinojosa petitioned the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals for a certificate of appealability.
Aug. 25, 2005 -- The 5th Circuit Court denied Hinojosa a certificate of appealability.
Nov. 22, 2005 -- Hinojosa petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari review.
Mar. 20, 2006 -- The U.S. Supreme Court denied the appeal.

PRIOR CRIMINAL HISTORY

In Bexar County, Hinojosa was convicted of robbery and voluntary manslaughter.

Houston Chronicle

"San Antonio man executed for '94 stabbing death," by Michael Graczyk. (Associated Press Aug. 17, 2006, 6:40PM)

HUNTSVILLE — A San Antonio man with a previous conviction for manslaughter was executed today for the abduction, rape and fatal stabbing of a woman more than 12 years ago. Richard Hinojosa expressed love for his family and asked his victim's family to find peace in their heart. ``I am going to be free. I am going to heaven,'' Hinojosa said from the death chamber gurney as thunder and lightning crackled outside. ``I pray for you. Please find peace in your heart,'' he said looking at the parents, a brother and two aunts of his victim. ``I know you may hate me for whatever reason. The Lord says hate no one. I hope you find peace in your heart. I know my words cannot help you. I truly mean what I say.''

He indicated to the prison warden that he had finished his statement, telling him, ``Kick the tires and light the fire. I'm going home to see my son and my mom.'' He began chanting a prayer, repeatedly invoking Yahweh as the lethal drugs were being administered. Eight minutes later at 6:19 p.m. CDT he was pronounced dead.

Hinojosa, 44, acknowledged gunning down a man in 1986 but insisted he wasn't responsible for the slaying eight years later of 29-year-old Terry Wright, who lived next door. He spent 2½ years in prison for the voluntary manslaughter conviction, then received a death sentence for Wright's killing.

Hinojosa's execution was the 18th this year in Texas — one short of last year's total in the nation's most active capital punishment state. Two more executions are scheduled for this month and at least six other inmates have dates through the remainder of the year. If all are carried out, the total still would fall well short of the record 40 executions in Texas in 2000.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday denied Hinojosa's appeal that challenged the use of the lethal drugs in the execution process as unconstitutionally cruel. The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles this week also refused a request for commutation or a temporary reprieve. "At least I know where I'm going," Hinojosa, smiling and sounding upbeat, said Wednesday from the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Polunsky Unit, home of the state's death row.

DNA identified Hinojosa as the only one of nearly 20 million people who fit a profile of sperm taken from Wright. The former custodian at a club at San Antonio's old Brooks Air Force Base said his sex with the victim was consensual. The same argument was raised at his trial. Prosecutors, however, disputed the contentions and pointed to other evidence that showed the intruder broke into Wright's home by climbing into an atrium and that footprints at the scene came from a distinctive athletic shoe worn by Hinojosa.

Hinojosa also argued that two men seen in the southeast San Antonio neighborhood May 10, 1994, the date of Wright's attack, were more likely responsible for her killing. "If two people were there, there would have been evidence," said Jim Kopp, the Bexar County assistant district attorney who prosecuted Hinojosa.

Evidence showed Wright was taken from her home, stabbed 11 times, thrown into the trunk of her car and dumped in a secluded area known for illegal trash dumping. Co-workers at the dental office Wright managed called her father when she failed to show up for work. Her father found a window broken at her house, the place ransacked and phone lines cut. Her car was found abandoned and broken down. Fluid from a broken transmission line led police to a dirt road, and search dogs then were used to find the body.

Hinojosa said he was being questioned by police for assaulting his wife when detectives began interrogating him about the Wright slaying and he became a scapegoat for her death. "I already had a criminal record for taking someone's life," he said. In the manslaughter case, Hinojosa said the victim had been harassing his family. "He showed up at the house and I killed him," he said. "He had a weapon in his hand."

Hinojosa said he was part Cherokee and Choctaw, and his American Indian ancestry earned him the nickname "Hawkeye" on death row.

Fort Worth Star Telegram

"San Antonio man executed for 1994 abduction-slaying," by Michael Graczyk. (Associated Press Fri, Aug. 18, 2006)

HUNTSVILLE, Texas - Thunder boomed, lightning crackled and rain pounded on the prison roof as convicted murderer Richard Hinojosa repeatedly invoked "Yahweh" from the Texas death chamber gurney and lethal drugs were pumped into his arms. Eight minutes later, the 44-year-old Hinojosa was pronounced dead, executed Thursday evening for the 1994 abduction, rape and fatal stabbing of a San Antonio woman.

"I know you may hate me for whatever reason," Hinojosa told the parents, brother and two aunts of slaying victim Terry Wright, 29, in the moments before the drugs were administered. "The Lord says hate no one. "I hope you find peace in your heart. I know my words cannot help you. I truly mean what I say." He also expressed love to his family, and ended his brief final statement with instructions to Warden Charles O'Reilly standing next to him: "Kick the tires, light the fire, warden. I am going home to see my son and my mom."

Hinojosa, who was known on death row as "Hawkeye" because his mother was part Cherokee and Choctaw, then went into his chant. "Hey-yah, Yahweh. Hey-yah, Yahweh," he said several times as claps of thunder made the scene surreal.

Hinojosa acknowledged shooting a man to death in 1986 - and accepting an eight-year prison term in a plea bargain - but insisted he wasn't responsible for the slaying eight years later of Wright, who lived next door. He spent 2 1/2 years in prison for the voluntary manslaughter conviction before he was released on mandatory supervision.

His execution, the 18th this year in Texas, and one short of the total for all of last year in the nation's most active capital punishment state, came almost 10 years after he arrived on death row for Wright's killing. The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday denied Hinojosa's appeal that challenged the use of the lethal drugs in the execution process as unconstitutionally cruel. No last-day appeals were filed. "I've got no more bullets," Hinojosa's lawyer, Michael Gross, said. "There's nothing else legally that can be done." "I'm happy all the processes have been worked through," said Jim Kopp, the Bexar County assistant district attorney who prosecuted Hinojosa. Wright's relatives who watched Hinojosa die declined to speak with reporters after the execution.

DNA identified Hinojosa as the only one of nearly 20 million people who fit a profile of sperm taken from the slain woman. Hinojosa, a former custodian at a club at San Antonio's old Brooks Air Force Base, said in an interview this month on death row his sex with Wright was consensual. It was the same argument raised at his trial.

Prosecutors, however, disputed the contentions and pointed to other evidence that showed the intruder broke into Wright's southeast San Antonio home May 10, 1994, by climbing into an atrium and that footprints at the scene came from a distinctive athletic shoe worn by Hinojosa.

Evidence showed Wright was taken from her home, stabbed 11 times, thrown into the trunk of her car and dumped in a secluded area known for illegal trash dumping. Co-workers at the dental office Wright managed called her father when she failed to show up for work. Her father found a window broken at her house, the place ransacked and phone lines cut. Her car was found abandoned and broken down. Fluid from a broken transmission line led police to a dirt road, and search dogs then were used to find the body.

Hinojosa said he was being questioned by police for assaulting his wife when detectives began interrogating him about the Wright slaying and he became a scapegoat for her death. "I already had a criminal record for taking someone's life," he said. In the manslaughter case, Hinojosa said the victim had been harassing his family. "He showed up at the house and I killed him," he said. "He had a weapon in his hand."

Two more executions are scheduled for this month, including Justin Fuller, scheduled to die next week for the abduction, robbery and fatal shooting of a Tyler man in 1997, and at least seven other inmates have dates through the remainder of the year. If all are carried out, the total still would fall well short of the record 40 executions in Texas in 2000.

Reuters News

"Texas man executed for 1994 kidnapping-murder." (Thu Aug 17, 2006 8:31pm ET) HUNTSVILLE, Texas (Reuters) - A Texas construction worker was executed by lethal injection on Thursday for the 1994 kidnapping, rape and murder of his 29-year-old next-door neighbor in San Antonio. Richard Hinojosa, 44, was condemned for robbing, kidnapping, raping and then stabbing to death Terry Wright in San Antonio on May 10, 1994.

Prosecutors said Hinojosa broke into Wright's home, forced her to drive to an empty field in southeast San Antonio where he raped her. Hinojosa then repeatedly stabbed Wright in the chest and back and covered her body with grass. Hinojosa was linked to the crime though fingerprints and DNA found at the crime scenes, prosecutors said. Defense attorneys argued during Hinojosa's 1997 trial that he had been dating Wright when the murder happened, which would explain fingerprints and semen found by investigators. They also suggested others in the neighborhood were responsible for the crime.

Hinojosa had been previously convicted of voluntary manslaughter.

On Thursday, in a final statement while strapped to a gurney in the death chamber, Hinojosa apologized to Wright's relatives witnessing the execution. "I know you may hate me for whatever reason, the Lord says hate no one," he said. "I hope you find peace in your heart. I know my words cannot help you. I truly mean what I say." "Kick the tires and light the fire," Hinojosa said. "I am going home to see my son and my mom, I love you and God bless you."

Hinojosa was the 18th person executed in Texas this year and the 373rd put to death since the state resumed capital punishment in 1982, six years after the U.S. Supreme Court lifted a national death penalty ban, totals that lead the nation.

For his final meal, Hinojosa requested chef salad with ranch dressing, fried chicken, chili cheese nachos, fried eggs, French fries, onion rings, Coca-Cola and red cream soda.

Texas has nine more executions scheduled this year.

Texas Execution Information Center by David Carson

Richard Hinojosa, 44, was executed by lethal injection on 17 August 2006 in Huntsville, Texas for the rape and murder of a 29-year-old woman.

On 10 May 1994, Terry Wright failed to show up for work. After receiving a call from concerned co-workers, her father went to Wright's suburban San Antonio home. There, he found a window to an enclosed atrium smashed open, and furniture in disarray. Muddy footprints led to Wright's room. Her jewelry box had been rummaged through, the cord to an electric fan had been cut, and her nightgown, torn at the straps, lay on the floor. Her car was also missing, and the telephone lines were cut.

Later that day, police found Wright's car near a freeway intersection. They followed a trail of transmission fluid to a dirt road. They found Wright's nude body in a nearby field, covered in grass. She had been stabbed to death 11 times with a sharp object. The autopsy showed signs of sexual assault, and that she had sexual intercourse within 24 hours of her death. Wright's boyfriend, who said he had last spoken to her around 11:00 p.m. the previous evening, was not the contributor of the DNA taken from Wright's body.

Richard Hinojosa, then 32, lived next door to Wright. At the time, he was on parole for a manslaughter conviction, so he was questioned. He said that he had came home from work at about 11:00 p.m. on the night of the crime, and stayed there until he left for work again before 8:00 a.m. Family members living with Wright confirmed his alibi.

In December 1994, Hinojosa was arrested on a domestic violence accusation. While he was in custody, authorities took DNA samples from him. Those samples were matched to the DNA found on Wright. He was arrested. Investigators then found that the shoeprints found in Wright's house and at the murder scene matched the brand and model of shoes that Hinojosa's wife had purchased for him several months before the murder.

At the trial, Hinojosa testified that he had been having an affair with Wright. He said that his sex with the victim was consensual and that he was not involved in her murder. Hinojosa had a previous conviction for voluntary manslaughter and robbery. He served 2 years of an 8-year sentence before receiving parole in December 1988. (At the time, early release was common in Texas due to strict prison population caps imposed by U.S. District Judge William Wayne Justice.)

A jury convicted Hinojosa of capital murder in July 1997 and sentenced him to death. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence in October 1999. All of his subsequent appeals in state and federal court were denied.

In an interview from death row two weeks prior to his execution, Hinojosa said that he met Wright after she moved in next door to his father. Hinojosa and his wife - his fourth - then moved in with his father. He said that his wife would leave for a week or two at a time, and that he and Wright began having an affair. He said he had no involvement in her murder. He also said that the shoe print found at the murder scene was a size 7, and he wore a size 10½.

Despite pleading his innocence, Hinojosa expressed hope that his youngest son, a 16 year old, would be allowed to witness his execution because "it might make sure that he stays on the straight and narrow path, especially if I offer some wisdom to him before I die." "I'm going to tell you, I don't want to die over something I didn't do," Hinojosa said, "but I'm at peace with the whole thing. I know I have taken the life of someone before." He said that in the manslaughter case, he killed someone who had been harassing his family and who came to his house with a weapon in his hand. "I'm not angry," he continued. "Maybe this is something that the family needs to heal, even though, like I said, I claim my innocence, maybe this is something they need. Maybe this is something my dysfunctional family needs to bring them to some kind of healing. You know, it can serve a bigger purpose."

"I am going to be free. I am going to Heaven," Hinojosa said in his last statement at his execution. He then told the victim's relatives who were in attendance, "I pray for you. Please find peace in your heart. I know you may hate me for whatever reason. The Lord says hate no one. I hope you find peace in your hearts. I know my words cannot help you. I truly mean what I say." After Hinojosa finished his statement, he told the warden, "Kick the tires and light the fire. I'm going home to see my son and my mom." The lethal dose was then given. Hinojosa chanted a prayer as the drugs took effect. He was pronounced dead at 6:19 p.m.

Huntsville Item

"State executes Bexar County man for 1994 murder," by Tori Brock. (August 18, 2006)

Richard Hinojosa apologized to his victim’s family before being executed Thursday night inside the Huntsville “Walls” Unit. “I know you may hate me for whatever reason,” he said, looking at the family of 29-year-old Terry Wright. “But, the Lord says hate no one. I hope you find peace in your heart.”

Hinojosa’s execution is No. 18 this year in Texas, the U.S.’s busiest capital punishment state. If all scheduled executions are carried out, Texas will execute 27 people in 2006.

Hinojosa, 44, looked at his family and apologized for “not being the man you wanted me to be.” “I love you very much. Dianne, Virginia, Toby and Irene, I love all of you,” he said, looking at his friends and family witnessing his execution. “I am going to be free. I am going to heaven. “Please be strong, and I love you all,” he said. After finishing his final statement, Hinojosa said, “Kick the tires and light the fires. I’m going home to see my son and my mom.”

Hinojosa was convicted for the May 1994 abduction, robbery and murder of Wright in San Antonio. According to Texas Department of Criminal Justice reports, Hinojosa abducted Wright from her home in her own car after she caught him in the act of burglarizing her residence. He then drove Wright to a secluded area where she was robbed, sexually assaulted and stabbed her with what was believed to be a screwdriver. Hinojosa was linked to the murder through DNA testing.

Once the lethal dose began to flow, Hinojosa began chanting a prayer and repeating Yahweh before gasping and sputtering. He then exhaled deeply. He was pronounced dead at 6:19 p.m., eight minutes after the lethal dose began. While the victim’s family declined to give a press conference, the inmate’s family was visibly distressed. One female witness began to sob as Hinojosa took his last breath.

While every inmate is allowed a last meal request, many do not make one. As last meal requests go, Hinojosa had a lengthy one, requesting a chef salad with ranch dressing, French fries, onion rings, 12 pieces of fried chicken, five jalapeno nachos with chili cheese, four fried eggs over easy, six Cokes, six Big Reds and ketchup.

Hinojosa is the second of four inmates scheduled for execution in August. The next is Aug. 24 when Justin Fuller is set to die for a conviction of abducting, robbing and fatally shooting a man in Tyler in 1997. Find a list of scheduled executions in the state of Texas on the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Web site at http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/deathrow.htm.

ProDeathPenalty.com

On the morning of May 10, 1994, Terry Wright was reported missing. Evidence showed Wright was taken from her home, stabbed 11 times, thrown into the trunk of her car and dumped in a secluded area known for illegal trash dumping. Co-workers at the dental office Wright managed called her father when she failed to show up for work. Her father found a window broken at her house, the place ransacked and phone lines cut. A footprint was found in the mud in the atrium outside her house directly adjacent to a broken window and her car was missing. Her car was found abandoned and broken down later that day in an isolated location not far from her residence. Fluid from a broken transmission line led police to a dirt road. That evening, with the help of search dogs from a K-9 unit, officers discovered Wright's nude body in a field not far from where her car was found.

A shoe print found near her body matched the shoe print found in the mud at her residence as well as the outsole of the brand and model of tennis shoes that had been purchased for Hinojosa by his wife some months before the murder. An autopsy revealed that Wright had been stabbed eleven times in the chest and back and that there was sperm present in her vagina. DNA testing revealed that Richard Hinojosa was the probable source of the sperm found inside Wright. Evidence also showed that around the time of the murder Hinojosa lived in his father's house, which was next door to Wright's house. Hinojosa, a former custodian at a club at San Antonio's old Brooks Air Force Base, said his sex with the victim was consensual.

National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty

Richard Hinojosa - Texas - August 17, 2006
Do Not Execute Richard Hinojosa

The body of Terry Wright was found in San Antonio, on May 10, 1994. She had been raped and stabbed eleven times. Several days later Richard Hinojosa was arrested and charged with her murder. The evidence against Hinojosa was circumstantially strong; DNA and a footprint at the crime scene both pointed towards Hinojosa as the murderer. Semen samples taken from Wright’s body were originally compared with DNA from Hinojosa were found to be inconclusive. They were then sent to an outside laboratory where a match was found.

One eyewitness testified that she had seen two men and a woman in Wrights apartment the night of the murder. She said it looked like the three were dancing. Another person came forward and testified that early that morning he had seen two men working on a Black Beretta, Wright’s car. The other man was never found; Hinojosa was the only one arrested for involvement in the murder.

Hinojosa’s defense attorney argued that he and Wright had had consensual sex prior to the murder, explaining the presence of his DNA in Ms. Wright. A co-worker of Hinojosa’s testified that he had seen Hinojosa bring Wright to the country club where they worked. The court documents make no mention of rape, just that Hinojosa’s sperm was found inside Ms. Wright.

Richard Hinojosa should not be executed for the murder of Terry Wright. Another man may have been witness to the events of this case and may have committed the murder. Too much uncertainty surrounds this case to justify killing a human being.

Please write to Gov. Rick Perry on behalf of Richard Hinojosa.

Court TV

An interview with Richard Hinojosa

"I honestly feel that the death penalty, they say it's a deterrent and everything, if you're going to use it as a deterrent, it should be done in the public eye. They should do it at a time when children are in school and old enough to see this and televise it, so they can see what the outcome of leading a bad life can come to. " —Richard Hinojosa

CourtTVnews.com reporters Emanuella Grinberg and Andrew Brooks interviewed death row inmate Richard Hinojosa on Aug. 2 at the Polunsky Prison Unit in Livingston, Texas. He was executed on Thursday, Aug. 17. The transcript below has been edited for length and clarity.

COURTTVNEWS.COM: Can you describe a typical day for you here on death row?

RICHARD HINOJOSA: A typical day would be waking up maybe 5 or 6 o'clock, and laying back in my bunk and trying to figure out what I'm going to do today. And maybe spending 30 to 45 minutes in meditation and prayer. After that, struggling to find something to do on a daily basis.

CTV: What do you look forward to each day?

HINOJOSA: There's nothing really to look forward here. Maybe seeing a chaplain every once in a while, I look forward to that. Spending time with people to talk with.

CTV: What is the low point of your day?

HINOJOSA: The low point is before you go to bed. You know in your mind and in your heart that you're going to have to wake up to face another day here. You know, it's pretty monotonous.

CTV: Do you have a favorite book?

HINOJOSA: A book, well, I suffer from severe dyslexia. I dropped out of school at very young age. I have learned how to read a little bit here, and my favorite book that I have been struggling to read is called "The Cherokee Full Circle." It's based on, you know, the spiritual aspect.

CTV: When did you drop out?

HINOJOSA: First year of junior high. At that time, when I was going to school, there was not very much known about dyslexia. And I found it very embarrassing and hard when teachers would call on me to perform in front of the class. And trying to explain things to them, it just got real frustrating.

CTV: Do you communicate with other inmates?

HINOJOSA: We talk. There's no physical contact, but we can talk to each other.

CTV: Who are you closest to?

HINOJOSA: He was executed. His name was Bryan Wolfe. We met each other at Ellis [Prison Unit] and he helped me correspond with family and friends. And he helped me to learn how to read. You know, he was truly a nice guy.

CTV: When was he executed?

HINOJOSA: It's going on two years.

CTV: How has life in prison changed you?

HINOJOSA: To be honest with you, I have grown spiritually here. I have learned how to read here. I think if I would have focused on the things I focus on now when I was out there, my life would have been a lot better. It has given me a true opportunity to grow spiritually and that's the only way that I can cope with my situation at this point in time.

CTV: What things do you focus on now?

HINOJOSA: Some of the teachings of the Cherokee. My father's side of the family have all been Catholics, and I didn't follow the Catholic path too much as a child. Growing up in a church basically. It's just, you know, life is a gift. All life is a gift. And if you grow spiritually while you're here at this time in point, you learn some valuable lessons before you move on to the next level of existence. Death is not the final end to a person's life.

CTV: What have you learned?

HINOJOSA: Well, you might think it's funny, but the four directions. The four directions teach you compassion, they teach you wisdom, strength and patience. You know, father sky, mother earth, the moon, grandmother moon, it's Native American teachings that not everybody would understand. Everybody might believe in Jesus Christ or that type of spiritual aspect. The Native American spiritual aspect is a lot different, if I sat here and explained it all to you, you might think I was silly. Some people might think so.

CTV: Can you describe briefly how it's different?

HINOJOSA: We believe in mother earth, we believe in father sky, there's lessons that we learn from animals. All animals are spiritual, everything has a spirit. If you take the life of something, if it gives its life to you for food or clothing or whatever, you should be thankful. There's a circle of life, everything affects everything else. The decision that I made to come out here is like a coin. If you flip it, it's got two sides, yes or no, but they're all part of the same coin. So maybe by you talking to me right now, I might say something that might help somebody that's out there in the world today. I've learned that it's just not me me me me me anymore. I've learned to look at the broader picture, that's the spiritual part.

CTV: Can you tell us about your necklace?

HINOJOSA: That's bone, and it possesses power from the animal it was taken from, bison. And it's used for focusing on, when you are in mediation. A medicine bag has seven stones, and I have a medicine bag, as well. It has seven stones in it that represent the seven tribes, father sky, mother earth, and they're used for focusing on and meditation.

CTV: What do you miss most about life on the outside?

HINOJOSA: My children. That's basically it, just my children and my dad.

CTV: What is your relationship like with your children?

HINOJOSA: I am disappointed in some aspects because they're having children, and they're children themselves. I love them very much. I wasn't a very good father, I didn't abuse my children, but I'd go to work, come home and that was about it. Interacting with them some, but not very much, not as I should have. I was divorced from my first wife, and my third-oldest son and I spent very little time together, and it's hurt him. I know it has. He's told me in his messages. I can see that it has really affected his life, and I'm very sorry for that.

CTV: Do you have any siblings?

HINOJOSA: Six sisters, one brother.

CTV: Growing up, how was your relationship with them?

HINOJOSA: Dysfunctional, very dysfunctional. My brother, I remember getting shot with chinaberries from a slingshot. I got picked on a lot. My siblings, I'm half, like I said, my dad is Spanish and Mexican and my mother's got the Indian blood and she's Mexican, and I came out very fair complected. And being the second youngest and being my father's only other son, my father kind of spoiled me, and my other siblings kind of despised that. So I got picked on quite a bit.

CTV: How was your relationship with your parents?

HINOJOSA: I love them to death. My mom has passed away, and my dad is 85 years old. I just love them to death.

CTV: Growing up, what was your relationship like with them?

HINOJOSA: My mom and I, we were real close. My dad, well, I basically became my dad. He was a hell-and-fire provider. He didn't go out drinking, he was always home, but he went into the service when he was 14 years old back in World War II. He retired a master sergeant. He didn't have a father, his father passed away when he was young, so he raised us like we were in the military. He was not very compassionate, but he was always there and he was always concerned about his children. But the hugs and the kisses and the "I love yous" were never there. But it was implied by his actions.

CTV: What is your happiest memory from childhood?

HINOJOSA: I guess when I fell in love with my first wife. She was 14 and I was 15 when we got together. She had our first child when she was 16 years old. But that was the happiest day of my life, when we became one. Other than that, it was just all the running around and just being a typical kid. But you know, I was a kid when we got together. That was the happiest time of my life.

CTV: What did you want to grow up to do or be?

HINOJOSA: Live on a reservation.

CTV: Why?

HINOJOSA: Because I knew I had Indian blood in me, and I romanticized the old ways of the tribe. I felt that as a kid, growing up as a small kid, I just romanticized it. I figured I would probably fit in better there than anywhere else.

CTV: What are you good at?

HINOJOSA: What am I good at? I draw a little bit, that's about it. Are you talking about in here or out there in the world?

CTV: Out there in the world.

HINOJOSA: Well, I did custom marble and I got pretty good at it. I used to love doing that, you know, bathrooms, countertops, wrap-around showers, all kinds of stuff. Sunken bathtubs that are all put together in pieces.

CTV: What did you enjoy most about it?

HINOJOSA: Well, you walked into a job site and it's de-boned. You see nothing but plywood. You walk into a place, it's just ugly. And by the time you leave, you leave something there that's beautiful, that's going to last a long time, probably longer than I'll live, you know.

CTV: Was there one thing that you or someone else could have done when you were younger to prevent you from being here today?

HINOJOSA: Oh, yes. Yeah I could have been raised a lot differently. I could have had more mentors maybe in my life that could have helped change my life. I'm not proud of some of the things that I've done in my childhood. But I had been molested as a child. The person who did that was a close family friend and what they would do is they would put a rag with gasoline on my face and, to, I guess, get me intoxicated off the gas so I wouldn't remember what was going on. And I think that had a lot to do with my learning disability — the gasoline, you know, and stuff like that. He would feed me beer and stuff. But maybe if I would have been in a better environment my life would have been completely different.

CTV: Now that we know a little more about you, I want to talk a little about the crime that brought you here. How did you know the victim, Terry Wright?

HINOJOSA: We were having an affair, she moved in next door to my father. Her father and my father became friends, and me and my wife moved into my dad's house for a little while. We were getting ready to move into another apartment, and [Terry and I] became friends and we started to see each other, once. Me and my fourth wife, it was a real come-and-go situation between us, you know. She would leave for a week, maybe two weeks, and come back, and me and Terry started talking. I had taken her to Brooks Air Force Base, where I was working, a few times to the club and introduced her to a couple of people there. It was a pretty discreet relationship because I was married, for one, and her father and my father had become friends. And she didn't think it would be appropriate for her father to know or my father to know that we were having an affair.

CTV: Did you kill her?

HINOJOSA: No, I did not. I plead my innocence. They convicted me on a theory of old DNA and a shoe print, a shoe print my lawyer found out was a size seven at the scene of the crime, I wear a 10-and-a-half. There's no way I can put on a size seven.

CTV: Did you have any contact with her before she went missing?

HINOJOSA: The day of the crime? No. I got up and went to work. I went to work at Brooks Air Force base, I think I was going in at — man, it's been so long — it might have been 7 or 8 o'clock in the morning, and I showed up to work ... I was working split shifts. I returned home maybe about noon to my dad's house. I took a shower and I sat down in the living room, and they told me what was going on. And maybe about 20 minutes to an hour later, an officer came by and knocked on the door and asked if we had heard or seen anything. That's when we knew she was missing.

CTV: Have you exhausted your appeals?

HINOJOSA: Yes.

CTV: If and when you are executed, do you expect any family or friends to be there?

HINOJOSA: Yes, I do. Well, I just found out that because my son is 16 — my youngest son is 16 — that they might not let him in. My older children, I would not want them to be there. But my youngest son, there is a particular reason why I would want him to be there. My ex-wife might be there.

CTV: Why do you not want your other children to be there?

HINOJOSA: Why, because my oldest son was very close to his oldest brother and he buried his older brother and I don't think he would be able to take that and keep his composure. But, [my youngest son], I think if he was to see something like this it might make sure that he stays on the straight and narrow path, especially if I offer some wisdom to him before I die. I honestly feel that the death penalty, they say it's a deterrent and everything, the death penalty, if you're going to use it as a deterrent, it should be done in the public eye. If they're going to do it, they should do it at a time when children are in school and old enough to see this and televise it, so they can see what the outcome of leading a bad life can come to. Children don't even pay attention to what's going on in the news or the papers, so how can it be a deterrent? It's impossible. They should take it to junior high school and have it televised, and say this man's going to be executed, blah blah blah. They can put it on time-delay, so they can knock out what [the inmate] is saying. If he's offering good wisdom, why not let the children see it? Especially if they're going down the wrong side of the road and need to be moved back to the right path. I honestly feel that in my heart. When you do it sterile and behind closed doors, it's not a deterrent.

CTV: What do you think will happen to you when you die?

HINOJOSA: What will happen to me? Well, hopefully I move on and see Jesus Christ, I do believe in Jesus as well. And hopefully I'll be welcomed into heaven because I have asked for forgiveness for all my sins. And I know in my heart that I have been forgiven and I do know that truly.

CTV: What about the Cherokee side you of your faith, how does that correspond to the afterlife?

HINOJOSA: I'll be there with all my ancestors that have gone on before me, the spirit world that we believe in. Have you heard of a thing called string theory, with alter-dimensions and stuff? Well, I guess that would be the best way to explain, but you haven't heard of it.

CTV: Can you explain it?

HINOJOSA: I'm not really good with words, but I'll try. We believe that there's an existence, it's like ether. That's the best way I can put it: like ether, gas. It's present at all times, it's so easy to tap into. And you have to be careful what you put in it. If you put bad medicine in it, you're going to get bad medicine back. If you put good medicine in it, you're going to get good medicine. But the spirit world, it's a plane of existence. I guess that would be the best way to put it.

CTV: With two weeks left until your execution, do you feel you're ready to die?

HINOJOSA: Well, I'm going to tell you, I don't want to die over something I didn't do, but I'm at peace with the whole thing. I know I have taken the life of someone before, and I don't look at it as being the final deal. The body is just a shell. For someone to cry over the shell and be sad for the shell is not what I believe in. The spirit, it lives on. And yes, I'm not angry. Maybe this is something that the family needs to heal, even though, like I said, I claim my innocence, maybe this is something they need. Maybe this is something that my dysfunctional family needs to bring them to some kind of healing. You know, it can serve a bigger purpose. Let me put it to you this way that you may understand: If God brings you to it, he'll bring you through it.

CTV: Is there anything you want people to know about you that they may not know about you?

HINOJOSA: I'm a different person. I feel that I'm a new person. If anybody sees this that knows me if I've ever done anything to anyone, I truly apologize. The old Richard that they knew does not exist. He's dead and gone. He's buried. This is a completely different person, and I'm happy about that.

CTV: Is there anything you'd like to say to Terry Wright's family, if you could?

HINOJOSA: If I could, I'd express my sorrow for their loss, and they're not the only ones who have lost. I just hope they can move on with life.

CTV: What is your greatest fear?

HINOJOSA: My greatest fear used to be dying, but it's not anymore. As a child my brother walked into a fill-up station that was being robbed, and he was shot and killed when I was 10 years old. At that point, death was my greatest fear. I feared death. I would literally wake up and spend nights as a child terrified, you know, and it just drove me crazy.

CTV: Has anything replaced that fear of death?

HINOJOSA: No, fear is what you make it. It's the power that you give fear. If you're afraid of getting run over by a car and you spend your lifetime avoiding crosswalks and everything — how can I put this — who wins, you or the fear? You can use fear as a positive thing or a negative thing, it's what you choose to use it as.

CTV: What do you want to be remembered for?

HINOJOSA: I want to be remembered as the new person I've become, not the old person. Other than that, I haven't done anything worth being remembered for. I wouldn't want to be remembered for my crime. I don't know. There's nothing real significant in my life that would stand out — just the new person I've become.

Hinojosa v. State, 4 S.W.3d 240 (Tex.Cr.App. 1999) (Direct Appeal)

Defendant was convicted in the District Court, Bexar County, Mike M. Machado, J., of capital murder, and he was sentenced to death. On automatic appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals, Holland, J., held that: (1) evidence supported conviction; (2) affidavits supporting search and arrest warrants were not deficient; (3) DNA evidence was admissible; and (4) defendant did not have standing to challenge death penalty under United Nations Charter. Affirmed. Johnson, J., concurred in the result.

HOLLAND, J., delivered the opinion of the Court in which MCCORMICK, P.J., MEYERS, J., MANSFIELD, J., KELLER, J., PRICE, J., WOMACK, J., and KEASLER, J., joined. JOHNSON, J., concurred in the result. Appellant was convicted of capital murder on July 21, 1997. See tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.03(a). Pursuant to the jury's answers to the special issues set forth in articles 37.071 §§ 2(b) and 2(e) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the trial judge sentenced appellant to death. See Art. 37.071 § 2(g).FN1 Direct appeal to this Court is automatic. See Art. 37.071 § 2(h). Appellant raises eight points of error. We will affirm.

SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE

In his fourth point of error, appellant challenges the factual sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. The evidence shows that on May 9, 1994, Terry Wright, a 29-year-old manager of a dentist office, had made a date to see her boyfriend, Charles Miller, after work. They were unable to meet, however, because Miller had to work late and she had a late meeting. Miller called Wright at her home around 11 p.m. She had just returned from work and sounded tired from working all day. That was the last time they spoke.

Wright did not show up for work the following morning. Upon hearing this news, Wright's father went to her house to investigate. The front of Wright's house was completely caged by burglar bars. With a spare key, Wright's father unlocked the gate and the front door. The house was in disarray, particularly Wright's bedroom. Wright's nightgown, torn at the straps, lay on the floor. The cord to an oscillating fan was cut. Numerous items had been thrown around the room, and it appeared that a jewelry box had been rummaged through. Outside, police discovered that the phone lines on the side of the house had been severed. Apparently, the perpetrator gained entry by climbing up the burglar bars onto the roof, lowering himself into an enclosed garden atrium, FN2 and throwing a flower pot through the atrium window into the dining room. Police found mud on the burglar bars, a footprint in the mud inside the atrium, and muddy footprints inside the house leading from the dining room into Wright's bedroom. FN2. The atrium was not readily visible from the street.

At eight o'clock that same morning, police found Wright's abandoned black Beretta car near the intersection of Sulphur Springs Road and Loop 410. FN3 A trail of transmission fluid guided police from the car to a dirt road off the freeway where a metal pipe protruding through the mud apparently severed the car's transmission line. With the assistance of a K-9 unit, police found Wright's nude body, which had been covered with grass, in a nearby field. Wright had been stabbed 11 times in the chest and back, causing her death. Blood splattered on vegetation indicated that Wright was still alive when she arrived at the field. FN3. The car was found about one and a half miles from Wright's neighborhood.

Vincent DiMaio, the medical examiner, testified that the presence of sperm on vaginal swabs taken from the victim indicated that she had sexual intercourse within 24 hours of her death. According to the State's DNA expert, only 1 in 19,900,000 randomly selected people of appellant's racial classification group would match the DNA profile of the sperm collected on the vaginal swab. Appellant possessed a DNA profile that matched the sperm taken from the victim. Near the location where the victim's body was located, police found a footprint identical to the one found in the atrium. According to a Fila brand shoe representative, the prints were made by a leather Fila “Slant Shot” tennis shoe, style number 1-T32-0517. The Slant Shot was first distributed in January 1994 and was a “low seller,” comprising only one percent of Fila shoe sales in North America. Appellant's ex-wife FN4, Rebecca Alfaro, purchased a pair of size 10 or 11 white Fila tennis shoes for appellant and a couple of months later bought the same style of shoes for herself at a different store. She stated at trial that the soles of appellant's shoes were the same as the soles of her shoes. The soles of Alfaro's shoes were identical to the prints found at the crime scenes, except that the prints were the size of a man's shoe. When police began asking about appellant's shoes, Alfaro looked for the shoes but could not find them. Appellant offered his wife several excuses for why the shoes were missing: maybe his father accidently threw them away, maybe a dog carried them away, or maybe somebody stole them. FN4. Rebecca Alfaro and appellant were married at the time of the offense but divorced sometime before the trial.

Evidence showed that appellant, his father, wife, sister, brother-in-law, and sister's children lived next door to Wright FN5 in appellant's father's house. On May 9 , appellant returned home from work around 11 p.m-close to the same time as Wright. According to family members, appellant had developed a persistent, hacking cough from years of heavy smoking. Lisa Pecina, appellant's sister, awoke around 1 a.m. and could hear appellant coughing until about 2:30 or 3:00 a.m. Two dogs in the backyard of appellant's father's house normally barked at everybody, including appellant. But Pecina did not hear them bark that night. Pecina also did not see anyone drive up their street that night. FN5. One of appellant's sisters, Irene Hernandez, was the prior occupant of Wright's house, and appellant had visited his sister there several times.

Laurie Lowry, who lives in the house 70-90 feet directly behind Wright's, was awake feeding her newborn baby between 2:00 and 3:00 a.m. on the night of the murder. Through the closed blinds in Wright's bedroom, she could see the silhouettes of a woman, a big muscular man with a bushy ponytail, and a shorter man with spiked hair. Lowry saw a lot of movement in the room, and it appeared that the three were dancing.FN6 FN6. In her statement that she gave to police shortly after the murder, Lowry indicated that she saw only two silhouettes in Wright's house. At trial, however, Lowry insisted that she told the police that she saw three people and that the information in the statement was incorrect.

Dwayne Cann worked the night shift at a company near Old W.W. White Road and Loop 410. At around 3 to 4 a.m. on May 10, Cann was walking from one building to another when he heard a loud thumping sound. Near the 410 overpass, he saw two Hispanic males working on a black Beretta. One man with a ponytail FN7 was looking under the hatchback,FN8 and another man was lying on the ground, pounding on the underneath side of the car. Pablo Villegas, a taxi driver, testified that he was dispatched to the intersection of Sulphur Springs Road and Loop 410 sometime early that morning. He picked up two Hispanic males who paid him between $380 and $400 to take them to Dallas. FN7. There was much conflicting testimony at trial concerning appellant's hairstyle at the time of the offense. One witness said appellant had a shaved head and a “beaver tail,” another said he had a “mohawk,” and another said he had a clean cut hairstyle. Another witness explained that appellant changed his hairstyle frequently. FN8. Terry Wright's Beretta did not have a hatchback.

Appellant's father woke appellant between 5:30 and 6:00 a.m. on May 10 to get ready for work. Because appellant did not have a car, his brother-in-law drove appellant to his sister Irene Hernandez's house so that she could drive him to the Brooks Club at Brooks Air Force Base, where appellant had worked for several years as a custodian. Appellant clocked in at 8:04 a.m. He also worked the following day, but skipped work on May 12 . After working a half-day on May 13 , appellant never returned to work again. Appellant moved out of his father's house on the day Wright's body was found and stayed with Irene for two weeks before moving back in with his father.

Soon after the murder, appellant called the manager of the Brooks Club, attempting to use the club bartender and a retired tech sergeant as alibis. Neither the bartender nor the sergeant testified at trial. Two of appellant's former coworkers identified Wright as a woman that appellant had brought to the Brooks Club about six months before the murder. FN9 Two other coworkers testified that when they heard news that Wright's body had been found they asked appellant if he had known her. Appellant confirmed that the deceased had been his next-door neighbor, but stated, “I don't know the bitch.” FN10 A couple of weeks later, appellant visited the club and another former coworker asked appellant where he had been lately. He replied jokingly that he had been a “fugitive on the run.” FN9. This evidence was the basis for defense counsel's argument at closing that appellant and Wright had engaged in consensual sex on the night of the murder. FN10. One of the coworkers testified that appellant had denied knowing the victim but had not used the word “bitch.”

In March of 1995, Rebecca Alfaro and appellant moved out of appellant's father's house and into some apartments. When appellant was arrested shortly thereafter, Alfaro went to live with her mother. She boxed up appellant's personal things and took them with her. On October 16, 1995, she gave the boxes to his nephew, who gave them to appellant's sister, Irene. A few days before trial, investigators working for appellant's counsel requested clothes for appellant to wear during the trial. While looking through appellant's clothing, Irene found a pair of men's size 10 Fila athletic shoes. Like Rebecca Alfaro's Filas, these shoes are made of white leather with a red and blue Fila symbol on the side and tongue. The defense submitted these shoes into evidence at trial. Although the shoes submitted by the defense were similar in appearance to Alfaro's shoes, appellant's shoes were a different style (1-J17-0517) and had wholly dissimilar soles.FN11 FN11. Neither the State nor defense recalled Rebecca Alfaro to ask whether these shoes were the ones that she had purchased for appellant.

This Court has the authority to review the factual sufficiency of a capital murder case. See Jones v. State, 944 S.W.2d 642, 647 (Tex.Crim.App.1996). Under the factual sufficiency review standard, we view all the evidence “without the prism of ‘in the light most favorable to the prosecution’ ” and set aside the verdict only if it is “so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust.” Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126, 129 (Tex.Crim.App.1996). A clearly wrong and unjust verdict may occur in instances where the jury's finding is “manifestly unjust,” “shocks the conscience,” or “clearly demonstrates bias.” Santellan v. State, 939 S.W.2d 155, 164 (Tex.Crim.App.1997).

Appellant does not assert that the evidence is legally insufficient; therefore, we assume that the evidence is legally sufficient under the Jackson v. Virginia FN12 test. Then, we consider all of the evidence in the record related to appellant's sufficiency challenge, comparing the evidence supporting with the evidence controverting the elemental fact in dispute. See Santellan, 939 S.W.2d at 164. Even if probative evidence supports the verdict, we may disagree with the jury's determination. But we must be “appropriately deferential” to the jury's findings and avoid substituting our judgment for that of the fact finder. See id. FN12. 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)

Appellant asserts that no evidence puts him at either crime scene. He also contends that the DNA statistics and shoe prints merely demonstrate that appellant cannot be excluded as a suspect; they are not sufficiently reliable to establish his intention to kill the victim during an assault, a kidnapping, a burglary, and a robbery. Appellant denies that he was the source of the sperm found in the victim. Alternatively, appellant contends that, even if the sperm were his, the DNA evidence does not establish intent to kill because he and the victim “were known to have gone out on dates.” The evidence showed that appellant lived next door to the victim, was familiar with her unique house, and returned home from work around the same time she did on the night of the murder. Despite one in 19,900,000 odds, appellant's DNA profile matched the semen found in the victim. Contrary to appellant's argument, these impressive statistics support the jury's conclusion that appellant, as opposed to some unidentified “suspect” also sharing the same DNA profile, sexually assaulted, kidnapped, and killed Wright.FN13 FN13. Testimony that appellant and Wright appeared together once at the Brooks Club six months before the murder would not convince a rational jury that they had a consensual sexual relationship, as appellant now suggests.

We note that the perpetrator made a considerable effort to break into Wright's home and transport her several miles away before killing her and dumping her nude body. The perpetrator probably approached Wright's house on foot because she was abducted in her own car. Appellant lived next door to Wright and could have easily walked back to his house from the location where Wright's broken-down car was discovered (one to one-half miles away). The jury could have reasonably concluded that only a person living near Wright would take these particular steps to remove her from the neighborhood. Further, the Fila shoe prints discovered at the victim's house and in the field connect appellant to both locations. The defense's submission of a similar pair of Fila shoes found in a box of appellant's things does not negate the State's evidence that Rebecca Alfaro had purchased shoes for appellant with soles identical to the prints. Alfaro testified that she did not pack up appellant's things until ten months after the murder and did not remember packing any of his shoes. The defense neglected to ask Alfaro whether the newly-discovered shoes were actually the ones that she had purchased for appellant. Moreover, the defense made no attempt to ask the Fila expert to identify the style and date appellant's proffered shoes were distributed or to comment on their soles.FN14 Given the police's fruitless search for the shoes and appellant's multiple excuses for why the shoes were missing, the defense's eleventh-hour, serendipitous discovery of appellant's shoes could be seen to cast suspicion on their authenticity. FN14. We do note, however, that the State also did not attempt to confirm whether these were the shoes that Rebecca Alfaro had purchased.

We are mindful that, in order to convict appellant, the jury must have discounted the testimony of defense witnesses who contradicted the State's physical evidence. Affording appropriate deference to the fact finder's credibility determinations, however, we cannot say that the verdict is “manifestly unjust,” “shocks the conscience,” or “clearly demonstrates bias.” Santellan, 939 S.W.2d at 165; Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d at 135. Because we do not find the verdict clearly “wrong and unjust,” we reject appellant's factual sufficiency challenge and conclude the evidence is factually sufficient to support appellant's capital murder conviction. Appellant's fourth point of error is overruled.

* * *

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

Hinojosa v. Dretke, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (W.D.Tex. 2004) (Habeas).

FURGESON, J.
Petitioner Richard Hinojosa filed this federal habeas corpus action pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. Section 2254 seeking review of his July, 1997 Bexar County conviction for capital murder and his sentence of death.

I. Synopsis

As grounds for relief, petitioner argues that (1) the prosecution suppressed exculpatory and impeachment evidence in violation of the rule in Brady, (2) the prosecution knowingly used perjured testimony to secure petitioner's conviction, (3) petitioner's trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by (a) failing to adequately prepare for and rebut the prosecution's DNA evidence, (b) inadequately examining potential jurors during voir dire and accepting as jurors members of the venire who were likely biased against petitioner, (c) admitting during jury argument that petitioner was the source of the semen found inside the victim, (d) failing to present evidence rebutting the prosecution's shoe print evidence, (e) failing to request jury instructions at the guilt-innocence phase of trial regarding the lesser-included offense of murder, requiring unanimity regarding the method of capital murder, and the definition of “same criminal episode,” (f) failing to present mitigating evidence at the punishment phase of trial regarding petitioner's difficult, abused, childhood, (g) failing to present failure DNA evidence, (h) failing to present favorable shoe print evidence, (i) failing to voir dire the prosecution's DNA expert, and (j) failing to object to the trial court's characterizations of the presumption of innocence, (4) petitioner was constructively denied effective assistance of trial counsel, (5) the trial court committed fundamental error in combining different factual theories of capital murder in the guilt-innocence phase jury charge, (6) various terms employed in the punishment phase jury instructions were unconstitutionally vague, and (7) Texas statutes forced petitioner's jurors to continue deliberating after they had reached a verdict favorable to petitioner.

For the reasons set forth hereinafter, petitioner is entitled to neither federal habeas corpus relief from this Court nor a Certificate of Appealability.

II. Statement of the Case A. Factual Background 1. The Crime and its Aftermath

On the morning of May 10, 1994, Terry Wright was reported missing. Family members and police officers who arrived at her residence found a flower pot had been thrown through a window and her bedroom in a shambles.FN2 Muddy footprints led from the broken window into Ms. Wright's bedroom, where a torn nightgown was discovered.FN3 Both Ms. Wright and her vehicle were missing.FN4 The telephone line to Ms. Wright's residence had been cut. FN5 A footprint was observed in the mud in the atrium outside the house, directly adjacent to the broken window.FN6 Later that same date, Ms. Wright's vehicle was discovered in an inoperable condition in a relatively isolated location a short distance from her residence.FN7 That evening, law enforcement officers aided by a K-9 unit located Ms. Wright's nude body lying in a field near where her vehicle had been discovered.FN8 A shoe print found near where Ms. Wright's body was located matched the shoe print found just outside the broken window of Ms. Wright's home.FN9 The shoe prints matched the out-sole of a brand and model of tennis shoes purchased by petitioner's wife several months before Terry Wright's murder.FN10

FN9. A San Antonio Police Sergeant testified regarding the discovery of the foot print at the crime scene. See S.F. Trial, Volume 17, testimony of Jeffrey Humphrey, at pp. 73, 85, 95, 142, 153. A different San Antonio Police Officer testified that me made plaster casts of the foot prints located at both Mr. Wright's residence and the location where her body was discovered. See S.F. Trial, Volume 17 of 24, testimony of Crisoforo Vieyra, at pp. 199, 203, 205-06, 208-09; and Volume 18 of 24, testimony of Crisoforo Vieyra, at pp. 6-7 & 11. A tool mark expert testified that the sole patterns found on the shoe prints found at Terry Wright's residence and near where her body was discovered were a match. See S.F. Trial, Volume 18 of 24, testimony of Richard Stengel, at pp. 108 & 112-14. A photograph of the shoe print found at the location near Terry wright's body was admitted into evidence at petitioner's trial as State Exhibit No. 37 and appears at S.F. Trial, Volume 24 of 24, at pp. 98-99.

FN10. Petitioner's ex-wife testified at petitioner's trial that (1) in he months prior to Terry wright's murder, she purchased herself and petitioner matching pairs of FILA tennis shoes that were identical except for the fact that petitioner's pair were slightly larger than her pair, (2) after Terry Wright's murder, she was unable to locate petitioner's tennis shoes, and (3) she furnished law enforcement investigators with her pair of tennis shoes, which were identical, except for size, to the pair she had purchased petitioner prior to the murder. See S.F. Trial, Volume 18 of 24, testimony of Rebecca Alfaro, at pp. 71-74, 77-78, 80, 82, 92, & 101. A representative of FILA testified that (1) all models of the men's and women's versions of the FILA “slant shot” tennis shoes in question bore the same sole pattern, (2) the only difference between the men';s and women's models of that tennis shoe were the size of the shoe, with women's models having a much narrower out-sole, especially in the ball of the foot, and (3) in his opinion, the shoe prints found at Terry Wright's home and at the location where her body was discovered were made by men's shoes. See S.F. Trial, Volume 17 of 24, testimony of John A. Kivlehan, at pp. 158-65, 169, & 171.

An autopsy revealed both that Terry Wright had been stabbed eleven times in her chest and back and the presence of sperm in her vagina.FN11 Subsequent testing of the DNA recovered from the sperm found inside Terry Wright identified petitioner as the probable source of that sperm.FN12

FN11. See S.F. Trial, Volume 18, testimony of Vincent DiMaio, at pp. 187-208 & 211-13. The medical examiner testified that (1) five of the stab wounds penetrated the heart and were all potentially fatal, (2) another stab wound penetrated a lung and was also potentially fatal, (3) there did not appear to be any defensive wounds on Ms. Wright's body, and (4) the pattern of the wounds suggested that her heart had been the target of Ms. Wright's attacker. Id., at pp. 194-96, 203, 211-13, & 222.

FN12. More specifically, a Bexar County serologist testified that initial DNA testing, using the Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism (“RFLP”) method, proved inconclusive so samples were sent off to a private laboratory for more sophisticated DNA testing. See S.F. Trial, Volume 19 of 24, testimony of Lonnie Ginsberg. The representative of the private DNA-testing laboratory which conducted more sensitive Polymerase Chain Reaction (“PCR”) analysis of the sperm recovered from Terry Wright's vagina testified that (1) petitioner's DNA was a match for the sperm-DNA recovered from Terry Wright, (2) statistically, the odds of petitioner's DNA randomly matching all the DNA characteristics of the DNA revealed by the PCR testing of the sperm fraction of Terry Wright's vaginal swabs were one in nineteen million, nine hundred thousand, (3) there was no indication in their test results that the sperm found inside Terry Wright had come from multiple sources, and (4) there was no indication of contamination in their test results. See S.F. Trial, Volume 19, testimony of Meghan Clement, at pp. 58-77, 86, & 97-98.

2. The Indictment

On August 15, 1995, a Bexar County grand jury indicted petitioner in cause no. 95-CR-4325 on a single Count of capital murder. The indictment charged, in four separate paragraphs, that, on or about May 10, 1994, petitioner intentionally and knowingly caused the death of Terry Wright by stabbing her with an object unknown to the grand jury while in the course of committing and attempting to commit the predicate felony offenses of burglary, kidnaping, robbery, and aggravated sexual assault upon Mr. Wright, respectively. The facts and evidence elicited during petitioner's capital murder trial are discussed at length in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals' published opinion affirming petitioner's conviction and sentence on direct appeal. See Hinojosa v. State, 4 S.W.3d 240, 242-45 (Tex.Crim.App.1999).

3. The Trial

The guilt-innocence phase of petitioner's capital murder trial commenced on July 14, 1997. On July 21, 1997, the jury returned its verdict, finding petitioner guilty of capital murder.FN14 FN14. See Statement of Facts from petitioner's trial (henceforth “S.F. Trial”), Volume 21 of 24, at pp. 99-102; and Trial Transcript, Volume II of II, at p. 210.

The punishment phase of petitioner's capital murder trial began and ended on July 25, 1997, at the conclusion of which the state trial court sentenced petitioner to death by lethal injection.FN15 FN15. See S.F. Trial, Volumes 23 of 24, at pp. 53-56; Trial Transcript, Volume II of II, at pp. 224-25. Testimony and documentary evidence, including court records, admitted during the punishment phase of petitioner's capital murder trial established that petitioner had previously been convicted of multiple counts of assault and robbery, as well as for voluntary manslaughter arising from an incident in which the petitioner shot his victim in the chest and then ran up and shot the victim a second time in the back of the head. See S.F. Trial, Volume 22 of 24, testimony of Richard Contreras, at pp. 6-7 & 9; testimony of Beatrice Gonzales, at pp. 12, 15, 17, & 19; testimony of Vincent DiMaio, at pp. 23-27; and State Exhibit Nos. 99-103, found at S.F. Trial, Volume 24 of 24, at pp. 194-306. In response to two special issues, petitioner's jury found beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) there was a reasonable probability petitioner would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society and (2) taking into consideration all the evidence, there were insufficient mitigating circumstances to warrant a sentence of life imprisonment. See Trial Transcript, Volume II of II, at pp. 224-25.

4. Direct Appeal

Petitioner appealed. In an opinion issued October 27, 199, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed petitioner's conviction and sentence.FN16 Petitioner did not seek certiorari review of his conviction or sentence on direct appeal from the United States Supreme Court. FN16. See Hinojosa v. State, 4 S.W.3d 240 (Tex.Crim.App.1999).

5. State Habeas Corpus Proceeding

On July 20, 1999, petitioner filed an application for state habeas corpus relief, asserting all of the arguments outlined in Section I above.FN17 The state trial court held an evidentiary hearing on petitioner's state habeas corpus claims on March 7-8, 2000. In an Order issued August 23, 2000, the state trial court issued its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation that petitioner's request for state habeas corpus relief be denied.FN18 On January 31, 2001, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals issued an unpublished Order denying petitioner state habeas corpus relief based on the trial court's findings.FN19

* * *

D. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claims 1. Overview of the Arguments

In his third claim for relief, petitioner argues that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance to petitioner by (1) failing to adequately prepare for, rebut, and present DNA evidence, (2) failing to adequately voir dire and exercise peremptory challenges against biased members of the jury venire, (3) admitting during jury argument that petitioner could have been the source of the semen recovered from terry Wright's body, (4) failing to elicit favorable testimony from Alfaro and the prosecution's shoe print expert regarding the size of the running shoes the defense introduced at trial, (5) failing to object to and request jury instructions and definitions at the guilt-innocence phase of trial, and (6) failing to present mitigating evidence at the punishment phase of trial.

* * *

This aspect of petitioner's multi-faceted ineffective assistance claim fails to satisfy either prong of Strickland. Petitioner's trial co-counsel testified without contradiction during petitioner's state habeas corpus hearing that (1) petitioner informed him that petitioner had engaged in a consensual sexual liaison with Terry Wright shortly before her murder, (2) based on that information, said counsel argued to the jury that the presence of petitioner's semen inside Terry Wright's body did not establish that petitioner had sexually assaulted Wright, (3) in further support of this position, said counsel introduced the testimony of witnesses at the guilt-innocence phase of trial who had seen petitioner and Wright socializing together on previous occasions, and (4) said counsel did not believe it was in petitioner's best interests to allow petitioner to testify at the guilt-innocence phase of trial because such testimony would have opened the door to impeachment of petitioner through admission of evidence regarding petitioner's prior criminal convictions. FN127 Based upon the information related to said counsel by petitioner, the decision by petitioner's trial counsel to address the presence of petitioner's semen inside Terry Wright's body through argument and evidence suggesting petitioner had engaged in a consensual sexual liaison with Wright shortly before her murder falls well within the broad parameters of objectively reasonable professional performance. Thus, these complaints do not satisfy the first prong of Strickland.

* * *

For the foregoing reasons, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals' rejection on the merits of petitioner's complaints about his trial counsel's alleged deficiencies vis-a-vis the guilt-innocence phase jury instructions was neither contrary to, nor involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States, nor an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the petitioner's state trial and habeas corpus proceedings.

f. Failure to Present Mitigating Evidence Finally, petitioner argues that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to discover, develop, and present available mitigating evidence at the punishment phase of petitioner's trial showing that petitioner (1) had a family history of parental abuse, including physical violence and emotional isolation, (2) lacked stability in his marital relationships, (3) rarely attended church, and (4) had a family history that included depression, suicide, and mental illness.FN140 FN140. See Petition, at pp. 71-73 & 95-96.

During the punishment phase of petitioner's capital murder trial, his trial counsel presented several of petitioner's family members and a family friend who made emotional appeals for mercy on petitioner's behalf and attempted to show petitioner in a sympathetic light.FN141 Petitioner's trial counsel also presented testimony from two jail detention officers establishing that petitioner had been a model prisoner during his pretrial detention.FN142

FN141. More specifically, three of petitioner's sisters each (1) made an emotional appeal for mercy for petitioner and (2) testified that petitioner had done poorly in school due to his dyslexia and had not graduated from high school. See S.F. Trial, Volume 22 of 24, testimony of Lisa Pecina, at pp. 38-41; testimony of Linda Carroll, at pp. 42-44; and testimony of Irene Hernandez, at pp. 45-46. Petitioner's sister Lisa Pecina also explained during her testimony that the petitioner had been married and divorced four times and had fathered six children. Id., testimony of Lisa Pecina, at p. 40-41. Petitioner's older brother (1) made an emotional plea for mercy on petitioner's behalf, (2) testified that the oldest brother in their family, Gregory, had been shot and killed in 1972, (3) testified that when his young daughter, who shared a birthday with petitioner, died in 1988, the petitioner told him that he would never celebrate his birthday again. Id., testimony of Ruben Hinojosa, at pp. 47-50. A family friend, who testified that she had known petitioner for nine years, also made an emotional plea for mercy on petitioner's behalf. Id., testimony of Elizabeth Casillas, at pp. 51-52.

FN142. See S.F. Trial, Volume 22 of 24, testimony of Robert Falcon, at pp. 56-57; testimony of Robert Cannon, at pp. 61-63. On cross-examination, both of these detention officers admitted they were unaware that petitioner had been cited for possessing a razor blade, a violation of jail rules. Id., testimony of Robert Falcon, at p. 58; testimony of Robert Canon, at p. 64.

During his state habeas corpus hearing, petitioner offered no testimony from the lone member of his defense team identified by co-counsel as solely responsible for the punishment phase of petitioner's trial.FN143 Nor did petitioner offer any testimony establishing precisely what information regarding petitioner's background was actually in the possession of his trial counsel during the punishment phase of petitioner's trial.FN144 Instead, petitioner presented testimony from one of petitioner's sisters establishing that (1) their early childhood was characterized by a home in which a lot of screaming and shouting occurred, (2) their father, who was in the military, was emotionally distant, played no role in their education, and dispensed corporal punishment in an abusive manner, repeatedly whipping petitioner with a belt, once breaking a golf club over petitioner's back, once firing a gun into the kitchen ceiling in anger at petitioner, and, on another occasion, binding and hanging petitioner from a tree for an extended period of time, (3) their mother threw dinner, boiling water, and a kitchen knife at petitioner and, on other occasions, whipped petitioner with a coat hanger, a broom, a belt, shoes, or whatever was handy, (4) petitioner suffered from depression, never really learned to communicate, rarely attended church, and had several unstable marital relationships, (5) their entire family was devastated by the death of petitioner's niece, (6) petitioner's uncle, who had spent most of his adult life in mental institutions, committed suicide, (7) their oldest brother, with whom petitioner was close, was shot and killed at a bar, (8) she fought often with petitioner from age seven to twelve, (9) petitioner was married and divorced four times, fathered six children, and engaged in numerous extramarital affairs, (10) on one occasion, their mother directed petitioner to beat another child with a board so as not to appear weak, and (11) petitioner graduated from neither grade school nor high school and nor earned a GED. FN145

* * *

Viewed in proper context, there is no basis for disagreement among jurists of reason with regard to this Court's disposition of any of petitioner's claims herein, at least some or which are barred by the non-retroactivity doctrine of Teague v. Lane. All of the evidence petitioner claimed the prosecution withheld from his trial counsel was either readily available to petitioner through the exercise of due diligence or of such meager evidentiary value as to fail to satisfy the materiality standard of Brady. Furthermore, far from being unaware of Rebecca Alfaro's prior inconsistent statements regarding petitioner's FILA tennis shoe's sole patterns, petitioner's trial counsel effectively employed Alfaro's prior inconsistent statements to impeach her at trial. More importantly, it was the testimony of FILA company representative John Kivlehan and the prosecution's tool mark expert, not Alfaro's testimony, which linked a pair of men's FILA “slant shot” tennis shoes to both crime scenes. There has never been any evidence suggesting the prosecution knowingly employed any false testimony to secure petitioner's conviction. The state habeas court's conclusion that all of petitioner's ineffective assistance claims failed to satisfy both prongs of Strickland is not subject to disagreement among reasonable jurists. Petitioner made little effort to allege, much less prove, prejudice in support of most of his claims of ineffective assistance. Finally, well-settled Supreme Court precedent directly forecloses each of petitioner's final four claims for relief herein.

Under such circumstances, petitioner is not entitled to a certificate of Appealability with regard to any of his claims for relief herein. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Petitioner's request for an evidentiary hearing is DENIED. 2. All relief requested in petitioner's federal habeas corpus petition, filed July 16, 2001,is DENIED. 3. Petitioner is DENIED a Certificate of Appealability.