Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Media Advisory: Mark Stroman scheduled for execution

AUSTIN – Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott offers the following information about Mark Anthony Stroman, who is scheduled to be executed after 6 p.m. on Wednesday, July 20, 2011. Stroman was convicted and sentenced to death in a Dallas County court for the robbery and murder of Vasudev Patel.

FACTS OF THE CRIME

On October 4, 2001, Stroman shot and killed Patel during an attempted robbery at a Mesquite gas station that Patel operated. A store security camera captured the attempted robbery and murder. When Stroman entered the station early that morning, he demanded money from Patel. Patel reached for a .22 caliber pistol that he kept under the cash register, but he did not retrieve it. Stroman then shot the unarmed Patel in the chest, causing Patel to fall to the floor. The surveillance video showed that while Patel lay dying on the floor, Stroman was unable to open the cash register. Stroman demanded that Patel “open the register or I’ll kill you."

Stroman later described the robbery and shooting, and his motives and preparation for it to a fellow prisoner, who testified at Stroman’s trial that Stroman told him he had “been in the store two or three times previously to check it out and he didn’t see any cameras.” Stroman admitted that he intentionally killed Patel with a .44 chrome-plated “big long pistol.” Angry at people of Middle Eastern Descent following the September 11, 2011, terrorist attacks, Stroman’s killing of Patel was the last of a series of violent crimes that he committed against those whom he considered to be of Middle Eastern background.

On September 15, 2001, Stroman murdered Waqar Hasan by shooting him in the head as Hasan grilled hamburgers in his Dallas store. Stroman later told a fellow-prisoner that his murder of Hasan was his ninth crime of this type. Stroman also demonstrated racial motives for the killing, and stated that he was a member of a prison gang, had a .44 pistol and some automatic weapons, and intended to go to a shopping mall and start shooting everybody because of all of the Middle Eastern people there.

On September 21, 2001, Stroman shot and wounded Raisuddin Bhuiuian as Bhuiuian worked in a convenience store and service station. Unlike the murder of Patel, the crimes against Hasan and Bhuiuian did not involve robbery. Stroman admitted to all of these crimes and lacked remorse for any of them, claiming that he had performed a patriotic duty. Regarding his murder of Patel, Stroman told the fellow-prisoner that his country “hadn’t done their job so he was going to do it for us.”

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On November 15, 2001, Stroman was indicted by a Dallas County grand jury for the capital murder of Vasudev Patel. A jury found Stroman guilty of capital murder on April 2, 2002. On April 4, 2002, after a separate punishment hearing, the court sentenced Stroman to death. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Stroman’s conviction and sentence on November 19, 2003. The U.S. Supreme Court denied Stroman’s petition for writ of certiorari on June 28, 2004.

Stroman filed a state application for writ of habeas corpus in the trial court on November 13, 2003. The trial court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law recommending that Stroman be denied relief. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals adopted the trial court’s findings and conclusions and denied Stroman habeas relief on July 27, 2005.

Stroman filed a federal habeas petition in a Dallas federal district court on July 24, 2006. Stroman filed an amended petition on September 29, 2007. On August 21, 2008, a magistrate issued findings, conclusions, and a recommendation that Stroman’s amended petition be denied. On September 28, 2009, the federal district court denied the amended petition and dismissed the action with prejudice. Stroman then sought permission to appeal this decision. On December 27, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied Stroman permission to appeal. Stroman filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court on March 30, 2011. The Supreme Court denied the petition on June 27, 2011. During the last week of June 2011, Stroman filed a petition for clemency with the Texas Board of Pardons and Parole.

EVIDENCE OF FUTURE DANGEROUSNESS

During the punishment phase of his trial, the State presented substantial evidence of Stroman’s future dangerousness. The State first presented testimony regarding the murder of Hasan and the attempted murder of Bhuiuian.

Next, the State showed that, as a juvenile, Stroman was convicted of aggravated robbery, car theft, and burglary of a habitation at least twice. A psychological evaluation of Stroman revealed that, starting at the age of nine, he had stolen bicycles and cars, sold and used drugs, run away from home, and was disruptive in school. The superintendent of Collin County Juvenile Detention Center testified that Stroman did not succeed on juvenile probation. He stated that Stroman did not take advantage of any programs to help resolve his drug use. The superintendent described Stroman as troubled and in need of guidance and counseling.

A Dallas police sergeant testified that he arrested Stroman for possession of an illegal switchblade knife on September 20, 1985. On November 15, 1989, a Dallas police officer arrested Stroman after finding him in possession of brass knuckles, a prohibited weapon under Texas law.

As an adult, Stroman was convicted of burglary and sentenced to two years in prison for ransacking a man’s house and stealing rifles, jewelry, clothes, and checks. The victim never got his property back, and Stroman drained the man’s bank account by writing hot checks. At the same time, Stroman was also sentenced to two years in prison for theft from another individual.

On November 6, 1990, Stroman robbed a woman of her purse outside an auto parts store and began to buy items with the woman’s credit cards. Stroman was convicted of robbery and sentenced to eight years in prison. Stroman was also convicted of two counts of credit-card abuse and received two additional eight-year sentences to run concurrently.

On July 14, 2001, Stroman was arrested for carrying a firearm in an establishment that sold alcohol. Stroman was indicted for unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon as a second offender but was released from jail on bond on July 16, 2001. Stroman began his murder spree while out on bond.

The State presented evidence—testimony and letters/writings from Stroman while he was in pre-trial detention—demonstrating that he is a devout white supremacist with antipathy towards those of other races. A defense expert also read a letter Stroman wrote in which he described his anger about September 11th and explained why he went on a murder rampage afterwards. Stroman called the murders “patriotic” and acts of retribution against Arabs.

Texas Execution Information Center by David Carson.

Mark Anthony Stroman, 41, was executed by lethal injection on 20 July 2011 in Huntsville, Texas for the murder of a convenience store clerk during an attempted robbery.

On 15 September 2001, Stroman, then 31, murdered Waqar Hasan by shooting him in the head as Hasan grilled hamburgers in his Dallas store. On 21 September, Stroman shot convenience store employee Raisuddin Bhuiyan in the face. Bhuiyan was blinded in the left eye from the shooting, but survived. On 4 October, Stroman entered a gas station in Mesquite in Dallas County. Holding a .44-caliber pistol, he demanded money from the owner, Vasudev Patel. Patel, 49, began reaching for a gun that he kept under the cash register, but Stroman shot him in the chest, causing him to fall to the floor. Stroman was unable to open the cash register and said to Patel, "open the register, or I'll kill you." Stroman left the store without stealing anything. Patel died from his injury. The crime was recorded on the store's security camera.

A fellow prisoner who testified at Stroman's trial stated that Stroman told him he was angry over the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the U.S. He said his country "hadn't done their job, so he was going to do it for us" by killing people who he considered to be of Middle Eastern descent. Stroman told the prisoner his murder of Hasan was his ninth crime of that type. He further said that some automatic weapons police found in his car were intended for a planned attack at a Dallas-area shopping mall.

Patel had moved to Texas from India in 1983 and was a naturalized U.S. citizen. Hasan and Bhuiyan were also from South Asia, not the Middle East. While awaiting trial, Stroman wrote about his anger over the September 11 attacks and called his murders "patriotic". He stated that he belonged to the Aryan Brotherhood, a white supremacist prison gang, and his chest and arms were covered with tattoos of violent imagery.

Stroman had a lengthy juvenile and adult criminal history. Starting at the age of nine, he stole bicycles and cars, sold and used drugs, and ran away from home. He was arrested for possessing a switchblade at age 15. Four years later, he was arrested for possessing brass knuckles. As an adult, Stroman burglarized a man's house and stole rifles, jewelry, clothing, and checks. He then wrote hot checks, draining the man's bank account. He also committed theft from another individual and was sentenced to two years in prison for that offense.

In November 1990, Stroman robbed a woman of her purse outside an auto parts store and used her credit cards. He was convicted of robbery and credit card abuse and was sentenced to eight years in prison. He was paroled less than a year later. (At the time, early release was common in Texas due to strict prison population caps imposed by U.S. District Judge William Wayne Justice.)

On 14 July 2001, Stroman was arrested for carrying a firearm in an establishment that sold alcohol. He was indicted for unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon as a second offender, but was put on bond and released from jail on 16 July. He was out on bond when he began his killing spree.

A jury convicted Stroman of capital murder on 2 April 2002 and sentenced him to death. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence in November 2003. All of his subsequent appeals in state and federal court were denied. Stroman was also charged, but not tried, for the murder of Waqar Hasan.

Although at the time of his trial, Stroman made no secret of his white supremacist views and his desire to take revenge on Arabs for the September 11 terrorist attacks, in later years, he downplayed or denied these views. "I'm not the monster the media portrays me," he said in an interview from death row the week before his execution.

On a web site operated by death-penalty opponents, Stroman expressed remorse for the killings, but said his judgment was affected by a personal loss. "I lost my sister in the World Trade Center," he wrote. "I remember sitting at home watching the nightmare on TV. And knowing she was on the top floors of the North Tower ... Let's just say that I could not think clearly anymore and I am sorry to say that I made innocent people pay for my rage, anger, grief, and loss. I have destroyed my victim's families as well as my own. Out of pure anger and stupidity I did some things to some men from Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and Saudi Arabia - and now I sit on Death Row awaiting execution. And by no means am I proud of what I have done."

In court documents, prosecutors stated there was no evidence Stroman had a sister who died in the September 11 attacks.

Among the final appeals filed on Stroman's behalf was one by shooting survivor Bhuiyan, who stated that he was never given the opportunity to testify of his opposition to the death penalty. He also stated that he forgave Stroman and wanted to spend time with him to learn why the shootings occurred. "I'm praying to God to spare his life, to give him a chance," Bhuiyan told a reporter. "We all make mistakes as human beings." "Killing him is not the solution," Bhuiyan said. "He's learning from his mistake. If he's given a chance, he's able to reach out to others and spread that message to others."

Regarding Bhuiyan's lawsuit, Patel's widow said in a statement made via the Dallas County district attorney's office that no one had permission to speak on her behalf. The courts denied Bhuiyan's lawsuit, delaying Stroman's execution by about 2½ hours. "Even though I lay on this gurney, seconds away from death, I am at total peace," Stroman said in his last statement. "Hate is going on in this world and it has to stop. Hate causes a lifetime of pain." He repeated that he was at peace and called for Jesus to be with him. "I am still a proud American, Texas loud, Texas proud. God bless America, God bless everyone."

"Let's do this damn thing," Stroman said next to the warden. While the lethal injection was administered, he expressed love to his friends who were in attendance. "It's all good," he continued. "It's been a great honor. I feel it; I am going to sleep now. Goodnight. One, two, there it goes." He was pronounced dead at 8:53 p.m.

Dallas Morning News

"Mark Stroman executed for Dallas-area 9/11 revenge shootings; White supremacist loses appeal in slaying of Mesquite store clerk" (Associated Press 20 July 2011 07:20 AM)

HUNTSVILLE — A Texas inmate has been executed for killing a Dallas-area convenience store clerk as part of a shooting spree that he said was in retaliation for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Mark Stroman was pronounced dead at 8:53 p.m. Wednesday.

The lethal injection was briefly delayed as the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals considered a final appeal. The U.S. Supreme Court rejected appeals earlier Wednesday.

The 41-year-old Stroman claimed the shooting spree that killed two men and injured a third targeted people of Middle Eastern descent, though all three victims were from South Asia. It was the death of 49-year-old Vasudev Patel that put Stroman on death row.

The lone survivor, Rais Bhuiyan, unsuccessfully sued to stop the execution, saying his Muslim beliefs told him to forgive.

Reuters News

"Texas executes man who says he killed for 9/11 revenge," by Karen Brooks. (July 20, 2011)

AUSTIN, Texas (Reuters) - Texas on Wednesday executed a man for killing a store clerk near Dallas in 2001 in what he had called a "patriotic" act of retaliation for the 9/11 attacks. Mark Stroman, 41, was convicted of entering the store where Vasudev Patel was working on Sept 21, 2001, demanding money from the register, and then shooting him in the chest.

He admitted to at least three attacks in the weeks after the September 11, 2001, terror attacks on New York and Washington, all on men he believed to be of Middle Eastern descent. Stroman was given a lethal injection of drugs and pronounced dead at 8:53 p.m. local time, Michelle Lyons, a Texas Department of Criminal Justice spokesman, said.

"The Lord Jesus Christ be with me," Stroman said, according to Lyons. "I am at peace. Hate is going on in this world, and it has to stop. One second of hate will cause a lifetime of pain. I'm still a proud American. Texas loud, Texas proud. God bless America, God bless everyone."

His last meal included chicken fried steak with gravy, a ham-and-cheese omelet with onions and tomatoes, bacon, fried potatoes, fried squash and okra, pork chops with eggs sunny-side up, Dr. Pepper and a pint of vanilla Blue Bell ice cream. Stroman was the 28th person executed in the United States this year and the eighth executed in Texas, the most active state in the nation in executing prisoners.

A survivor of one of the attacks, Raisuddin Bhuiyan of Bangladesh, had tried to convince courts to stay the execution, saying it was against his religious beliefs as a Muslim. Stroman's execution was held up for two hours while judges heard the final appeals by Bhuiyan, who was shot in the face during the condemned man's post-9/11 shooting spree.

Stroman also admitted killing another man on September 15 and shooting Bhuiyan in the face days later, just weeks after the 9/11 attacks, according to a report by the Texas Attorney General. Stroman thought all of the men were of Mideast descent and viewed the attacks as "patriotic" in defense of a country that hadn't done enough to protect itself from terrorism, according to a report by the Texas Attorney General's Office.

Bhuiyan and his lawyers have filed a lawsuit against Texas Governor Rick Perry, claiming Bhuiyan's rights as a victim were being violated because he never got to meet with his attacker or tell the court how he wanted Stroman punished. Stroman indicated in news reports he was touched by Bhuiyan's actions on his behalf. But death-penalty advocates said the victim doesn't get to decide the punishment.

Houston Chronicle

"Post-9/11 Texas killer executed; Victim injured in shootings that left two others dead had sued to spare the inmate's life," by Michael Graczyk. (Associated Press July 20, 2011, 10:49PM)

HUNTSVILLE — A Texas inmate was executed Wednesday for killing a Dallas-area convenience store clerk during a shooting spree that he claimed was retaliation for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Mark Stroman, 41, said hate in the world needed to end and asked for God's grace shortly before the fatal drugs began flowing into his arms at the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Huntsville Unit. He was pronounced dead at 8:53 p.m., less than an hour after his final court appeal was rejected.

Stroman claimed the shooting spree that killed two men and injured a third in late 2001 targeted people from the Middle East, though all three victims were from South Asia. It was the death of 49-year-old Vasudev Patel, from India, that put Stroman on death row. The lone survivor, Rais Bhuiyan, unsuccessfully sued to stop the execution, saying his religious beliefs as a Muslim told him to forgive Stroman. The courts denied his requests.

Stroman's execution was the eighth this year in Texas. At least eight other inmates in the nation's busiest death penalty state have execution dates in the coming weeks.

From inside the death chamber, Stroman looked at five friends watching through a window and told them he loved them. "Even though I lay on this gurney, seconds away from my death, I am at total peace," he said. He called himself "still a proud American, Texas loud, Texas proud." "God bless America. God bless everyone," he added, then turned his head to the warden and said: "Let's do this damn thing." Feeling the drugs beginning to take effect, he said, he began a countdown. "One, two," he said, slightly gasping. "There it goes." Eleven minutes later, he was dead.

None of Patel's relatives attended the execution, and instead selected a police officer to represent them.

The execution was delayed for almost three hours before the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals barred a state judge in Austin from considering Bhuiyan's lawsuit to block the lethal injection. The U.S. Supreme Court had rejected appeals earlier in the day. Bhuiyan, in an unusual step, had asked the courts to halt Stroman's execution and said he wanted to spend time with the inmate to learn more about why the shootings occurred. The native of Bangladesh and a former convenience store worker lost sight in one of his eyes when Stroman shot him in the face. "Killing him is not the solution," Bhuiyan said. "He's learning from his mistake. If he's given a chance, he's able to reach out to others and spread that message to others."

A federal district judge in Austin rejected the lawsuit and Bhuiyan's request for an injunction on Wednesday afternoon. His lawyers appealed to the Supreme Court, where Justice Antonin Scalia turned it down. Stroman's lawyer, in a separate unsuccessful appeal to the Supreme Court, pointed to Bhuiyan's "significant surprise" and argued that attorneys during Stroman's trial and in earlier stages of his appeals were deficient for not illustrating "the path that led him to this violent frenzy."

Stroman was free on bond for a gun possession arrest when his shooting spree started. He had previous convictions for burglary, robbery, theft and credit card abuse, served at least two prison terms and was paroled twice. His juvenile record showed an armed robbery at age 12.

When police arrested him the day Patel was killed, they found the .44-caliber handgun used in the shooting. Stroman confessed, and court documents show he told authorities he belonged to the Aryan Brotherhood, a white supremacist prison gang. Prosecutors also said he told another jail inmate about the shootings and how automatic weapons police found in his car were intended for a planned attack at a Dallas-area shopping mall.

Stroman more recently denied the white supremacist description. He also had avoided trouble in prison in recent years, said Texas Department of Criminal Justice spokeswoman Michelle Lyons. Stroman blamed the shootings on the loss of a sister in the collapse of one of the World Trade Center towers - although prosecutors said in court documents that there was no firm evidence she ever existed. "I wanted those Arabs to feel the same sense of vulnerability and uncertainty on American soil much like the mindset of chaos and bedlam that they were already accustomed to in their home country," he said on a website devoted to his case.

He described his victims as "perched behind the counter here in the Land of Milk and Honey ... this foreigner who's own people had now sought to bring the exact same chaos and bewilderment upon our people and society as they lived in themselves at home and abroad." But he also said he'd made a "terrible mistake out of love, grief and anger" and had destroyed his victims' families "out of pure anger and stupidity." "I'm not the monster the media portrays me," he said last week from death row.

Besides Patel's slaying, Stroman was charged but not tried in the shooting death of Waqar Hasan, 46, a Pakistani immigrant who moved to Dallas in 2001 to open a convenience store. Hasan was killed four days after the terrorists struck. The attack on Bhuiyan came a week later.

ProDeathPenalty.Com

Execution Chronicles

Home
Writing
Poetry
Photo Album
Contact Mark

Greetings and Respect:

My name is Mark Stroman and I am currently awaiting execution in this modernized Dungeon of Death that most call Texas Death Row. And yes, it’s a nightmare come to life. Words can’t express my true feelings of this hellish place – oppressed confinement, chained and shackled like animals, surrounded by the smell of death day in and day out is almost more than I can stand. Like I said before, it’s a nightmare come to life.

I can not tell you that I am an innocent man. I am not asking you to feel sorry for me and I won’t hide the truth. I am a human being and made a terrible mistake out of love, grief and anger, and believe me I am paying for it every single minute of the day and it haunts me in my sleep as well.

September 11th, 2001 I lost my sister in the World Trade Center. I remember sitting at home watching the nightmare on TV. And knowing she was on the top floors of the North Tower… Let’s just say that I could not think clearly anymore and I am sorry to say I made innocent people pay for my rage, anger, grief and loss. I have destroyed my victim’s families as well as my own. Out of pure anger and stupidity I did some things to some men from Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and Saudi Arabia - and now I sit on Death Row awaiting execution. And by no means am I proud of what I have done.

I am from Dallas, Texas, father of four awesome kids. Three girls and one boy – kids are pure innocence – and I can’t stand for anyone to harm or abuse them – children are the future – innocent and pure! I was born October, 13th, 1969- and I have had a great life, and am blessed to have four awesome children. I am looking for a few solid non-judgemental friends to help my final days on earth easier to deal with. I promise to be open and honest and will respond to every letter received. I have watched many men walk their final walk and that has made me value life more then ever – I see things so much clearer now – Life is precious and full of surprises.

“With respect” I remain in the struggle,

Mark Stroman

Death Row USA

Mark Stroman #999409
Polunsky Unit D.R.
3872 FM 350 South
Livingston - Texas 77351 U.S.A.

Texas scheduled the execution on 07/20/2011

Messages and newsboard

USA Today

"Texas man executed for post-9/11 killing." (07-20-11)

HUNTSVILLE, Texas (AP) — A Texas inmate was executed Wednesday for killing a Dallas-area convenience store clerk during a shooting spree that he claimed was retaliation for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Mark Stroman, 41, said hate in the world needed to end and asked for God's grace shortly before the fatal drugs began flowing into his arms at the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Huntsville Unit. He was pronounced dead at 8:53 p.m., less than an hour after his final court appeal was rejected.

Stroman claimed the shooting spree that killed two men and injured a third in late 2001 targeted people from the Middle East, though all three victims were from South Asia. It was the death of 49-year-old Vasudev Patel, from India, that put Stroman on death row. The lone survivor, Rais (Raze) Bhuiyan (Boo-yon), unsuccessfully sued to stop the execution, saying his religious beliefs as a Muslim told him to forgive Stroman. The courts denied his requests.

Stroman's execution was the eighth this year in Texas. At least eight other inmates in the nation's busiest death penalty state have execution dates in the coming weeks.

From inside the death chamber, Stroman looked at five friends watching through a window and told them he loved them. "Even though I lay on this gurney, seconds away from my death, I am at total peace," he said. He called himself "still a proud American, Texas loud, Texas proud." "God bless America. God bless everyone," he added, then turned his head to the warden and said: "Let's do this damn thing." Feeling the drugs beginning to take effect, he said, he began a countdown. "One, two," he said, slightly gasping. "There it goes." Eleven minutes later, he was dead.

None of Patel's relatives attended the execution, and instead selected a police officer to represent them.

The execution was delayed for almost three hours before the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals barred a state judge in Austin from considering Bhuiyan's lawsuit to block the lethal injection. The U.S. Supreme Court had rejected appeals earlier in the day. Bhuiyan, in an unusual step, had asked the courts to halt Stroman's execution and said he wanted to spend time with the inmate to learn more about why the shootings occurred. The native of Bangladesh and a former convenience store worker lost sight in one of his eyes when Stroman shot him in the face. "Killing him is not the solution," Bhuiyan said. "He's learning from his mistake. If he's given a chance, he's able to reach out to others and spread that message to others."

A federal district judge in Austin rejected the lawsuit and Bhuiyan's request for an injunction on Wednesday afternoon. His lawyers appealed to the Supreme Court, where Justice Antonin Scalia turned it down. Stroman's lawyer, in a separate unsuccessful appeal to the Supreme Court, pointed to Bhuiyan's "significant surprise" and argued that attorneys during Stroman's trial and in earlier stages of his appeals were deficient for not illustrating "the path that led him to this violent frenzy."

Stroman was free on bond for a gun possession arrest when his shooting spree started. He had previous convictions for burglary, robbery, theft and credit card abuse, served at least two prison terms and was paroled twice. His juvenile record showed an armed robbery at age 12.

When police arrested him the day Patel was killed, they found the .44-caliber handgun used in the shooting. Stroman confessed, and court documents show he told authorities he belonged to the Aryan Brotherhood, a white supremacist prison gang. Prosecutors also said he told another jail inmate about the shootings and how automatic weapons police found in his car were intended for a planned attack at a Dallas-area shopping mall.

Stroman more recently denied the white supremacist description. He also had avoided trouble in prison in recent years, said Texas Department of Criminal Justice spokeswoman Michelle Lyons. Stroman blamed the shootings on the loss of a sister in the collapse of one of the World Trade Center towers — although prosecutors said in court documents that there was no firm evidence she ever existed. "I wanted those Arabs to feel the same sense of vulnerability and uncertainty on American soil much like the mindset of chaos and bedlam that they were already accustomed to in their home country," he said on a website devoted to his case.

He described his victims as "perched behind the counter here in the Land of Milk and Honey … this foreigner who's own people had now sought to bring the exact same chaos and bewilderment upon our people and society as they lived in themselves at home and abroad." But he also said he'd made a "terrible mistake out of love, grief and anger" and had destroyed his victims' families "out of pure anger and stupidity." "I'm not the monster the media portrays me," he said last week from death row.

Besides Patel's slaying, Stroman was charged but not tried in the shooting death of Waqar Hasan, 46, a Pakistani immigrant who moved to Dallas in 2001 to open a convenience store. Hasan was killed four days after the terrorists struck. The attack on Bhuiyan came a week later.

Stroman v. State, Not Reported in S.W.3d, WL 22721137 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003) (Direct Appeal)

KEASLER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court joined by MEYERS, PRICE, WOMACK, JOHNSON, HERVEY, HOLCOMB, and COCHRAN, JJ.

A jury convicted Mark Stroman of killing Vasudev Patel while in the course of robbing or attempting to rob him.FN1 Pursuant to the jury's answers to the special issues set forth in Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 37.071, §§ 2(b) and 2(e), the trial judge sentenced Stroman to death. FN2 Direct appeal to this Court is automatic.FN3 Stroman raises six points of error challenging his conviction and sentence. We reject each of his contentions and affirm the trial court's judgment.

FN1. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.03(a)(2). FN2. Art. 37.071, § 2(g). Unless otherwise indicated all references to Articles refer to the Code of Criminal Procedure. FN3. Art. 37.071, § 2(h).

In his first point of error, Stroman asserts that Article 37.071 is unconstitutional because the death penalty violates evolving standards of decency. Specifically, he asserts that developing evidence regarding the number of innocent individuals on death row across the nation shows that the death penalty as it is currently administered is flawed and amounts to cruel and unusual punishment.

Both we and the Supreme Court of the United States have held that the Texas death penalty scheme passes constitutional muster.FN4 Additionally, the defendant must show that the statute operates unconstitutionally as to him in his situation. This he has not done. That it may operate unconstitutionally as to others is not sufficient.FN5 Stroman's first point of error is overruled.

FN4. See generally Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262, 269 (1976); Conner v. State, 67 S.W.3d 192, 202-03 (Tex.Crim.App.2001). FN5. Moore v. State, 999 S.W.2d 385, 408 (Tex.Crim.App.1999), cert. denied, 530 U.S. 1216 (2000); Raby v. State, 970 S.W.2d 1, 7 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1003 (1998).

In his second point of error, Stroman claims that the United States Constitution requires the State “to prove insufficient mitigation beyond a reasonable doubt.” Specifically, Stroman states that the trial court erred in not so instructing the jury and in refusing to allow defense counsel to question prospective jurors on their willingness and ability to place this burden on the State. Stroman cites Apprendi v. New Jersey FN6 and Ring v. Arizona FN7 in support of his argument.

FN6. 530 U.S. 466 (2000). FN7. 536 U.S. 584 (2002).

In Resendiz v. State,FN8 this Court rejected the defendant's claim that Apprendi requires the State to bear the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the mitigation issue should be answered in the negative. In fact, we noted that Apprendi does not even address this burden. FN8. 112 S.W.3d 541, 550 (Tex.Crim.App.2003).

Neither does Ring support Stroman's argument. Ring, like Apprendi, refers to an increase in penalty over the statutory maximum. In Texas, the statutory maximum for a capital offense is death. The mitigation issue does not increase the statutory maximum. To the contrary, the mitigation issue is designed to allow for the imposition of less than the statutory maximum, a life sentence. So the United States Constitution does not require the State to bear the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that there is insufficient mitigation evidence to support a life sentence. Nor did the trial court err in refusing to instruct the jury to this effect or in refusing to allow defense counsel to question prospective jurors on the issue. Point of error two is overruled.

Stroman claims in his third point of error that the “12-10 Rule” of Article 37.071, § 2(d)(2) violates constitutional principles. We have repeatedly rejected this claim.FN9 Point of error three is overruled. FN9. Johnson v. State, 68 S.W.3d 644, 656 (Tex.Crim.App.2002); Wright v. State, 28 S.W.3d 526, 537 (Tex.Crim.App.2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1128 (2001).

Stroman complains in his fourth point of error that Article 37.071 is unconstitutional because it fails to define the term “moral blameworthiness” and the phrase “probability of committing future criminal acts of violence” given to the jury in the punishment issues. The phrase about which Stroman complains does not reflect the statutorily correct language of the issue which was given to the jury.FN10 This Court has repeatedly rejected claims that terms within this issue need be defined, and Stroman has given us no reason to revisit the issue here.FN11 Likewise, the term “moral blameworthiness” need not be defined because it can be understood in its normal use in common language.FN12 Point of error four is overruled.

FN10. Art. 37.071, § 2(b)(1), states that the jury shall be asked “whether there is a probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society[.]” FN11. See, e.g., Ladd v. State, 3 S.W.3d 547, 572-73 (Tex.Crim.App.1999)(holding that the terms “probability,” “criminal acts of violence,” and “continuing threat to society” need not be defined because the jury is presumed to understand them without instruction), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1070 (2000). FN12. Arts. 3.01 and 37.071, § 2(f)(4).

In his fifth point of error, Stroman claims that he was constitutionally entitled to present family members' pleas for mercy to the jury. Article 37.071, § 2(a)(1), provides that the State, the defendant, or defense counsel may present evidence “as to any matter that the court deems relevant to sentence, including evidence of the defendant's background or character or the circumstances of the offense that mitigates against the imposition of the death penalty.” Stroman does not contend that he was prohibited from introducing evidence concerning his background, his character, or the circumstances surrounding the offense. And whether a witness feels a defendant should live or die does not pertain to that defendant's background or character, or to the circumstances of the offense. The trial court did not err in prohibiting the family's pleas for mercy.FN13 Point of error five is overruled.

FN13. Fuller v. State, 827 S.W.2d 919, 936 (Tex.Crim.App.1992), cert. denied, 509 U.S. 922 (1993); see and compare Simpson v. State, No. 74,029, slip op. at 17 (Tex.Crim.App. Oct. 1, 2003)(holding that the wishes of the victim's family members as to the defendant's fate are not admissible).

Finally, in his sixth point of error, Stroman complains that the trial court erred by permitting the State to impeach his key expert witness “by eliciting the fact that she had testified for the defense in other notorious cases in which the jury imposed the death penalty.” He asserts that “[t]his line” of cross-examination was improper and was clearly designed to discredit Stroman's expert witness “by portraying her as a ‘hired-gun’ ... [who] finds mitigating circumstances no matter how gruesome the offense.” However, Stroman then concedes that this line of questioning “and its implicit significance” should be permitted. He agrees that cross-examining experts about who “butters their bread” is a classic method of cross-examining an expert for bias. He even admits that it is permissible to cross-examine experts about the opinions they rendered in previous cases in order to evaluate the expert's consistency. Nevertheless, he asserts that the “line of permissibility” is crossed when the evidence fails to show an inconsistency. In other words, Stroman argues that the State presented improper impeachment evidence.

But at trial, Stroman never objected that the State was improperly impeaching his expert. To the extent Stroman is raising this issue on appeal, his failure to object at trial waives any error.FN14 On the other hand, Stroman did object to the complained-of testimony on general relevance grounds. Still, Stroman's argument on appeal contains no discussion or analysis concerning the relevancy of the questions. To the extent Stroman is arguing relevance on direct appeal, he has inadequately briefed the issue.FN15 Point of error six is overruled.

FN14. Tex.R.App. P. 33.1. FN15. Tex.R.App. P. 38.1.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court. KELLER, P.J., concurred as to point of error six and otherwise joined the Court's opinion.

Stroman v. Thaler, 405 Fed.Appx. 933 (5th Cir. 2010) (Habeas)

PER CURIAM:

In the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Mark Anthony Stroman, a member of the Aryan Brotherhood, murdered two individuals he believed to be of Middle Eastern descent. He was convicted and sentenced to death. He sought federal habeas relief; the district court denied his petition and refused to grant a certificate of appealability (COA). Stroman now seeks a COA from this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Because reasonable jurists would not find it debatable that the district court's rejection of the underlying habeas petition was correct, Stroman's application for a COA is DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

Stroman murdered a gas station attendant, Vasudev Patel, in the course of an attempted robbery. Patel's murder was the last in a series of shootings—resulting in two individuals killed and one severely disfigured—that Stroman committed post–9/11 against those whom he believed to be of Middle Eastern descent. Stroman testified at trial that the United States government “hadn't done their job so he was going to do it for them.” Patel's murder, planned in advance, was captured in graphic detail by the gas station's surveillance camera. Stroman was convicted and sentenced to death. He has never shown remorse for the murders, and he even composed poetry in prison expressing his pride in his crimes.

The district court denied Stroman's habeas petition, concluding, among other things, that all but three of Stroman's claims were unexhausted and therefore procedurally barred, and the claims that were not procedurally barred warranted no habeas relief. Stroman now moves for a COA.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), a petitioner seeking a COA must demonstrate “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” In Miller–El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003), the U.S. Supreme Court clarified: “A petitioner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court's resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” 537 U.S. at 327, 123 S.Ct. 1029 (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)). The district court's review of the conviction was, like ours, guided by the deferential standards of AEDPA.

III. DISCUSSION
A. Stroman's Unexhausted and Procedurally Barred Claims

Stroman's habeas petition presented several unexhausted claims, including: actual innocence; lack of a presumption of innocence; lack of a fair defense; and ineffective assistance of counsel claims for failure to investigate and failure to introduce favorable evidence. Stroman does not contend that the claims are exhausted. He instead argues that: (1) he is excused from exhaustion because he is actually innocent; (2) the state corrective procedure was ineffective to protect his rights as per 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(B)(ii); and (3) his failure to exhaust is excused in light of Ruiz v. Quarterman, 504 F.3d 523 (5th Cir.2007).

We have reviewed the record, and we conclude that the district court's treatment of the actual innocence claim is not debatable among jurists of reason. To receive a hearing on the merits on a successive habeas claim, a petitioner “ ‘must show that it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted him’ in light of newly discovered evidence.” Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 332–33, 115 S.Ct. 851, 130 L.Ed.2d 808 (1995) (O'Connor, J., concurring). Moreover, the “new reliable evidence” ought to consist of “exculpatory scientific evidence, trustworthy eyewitness accounts, or critical physical evidence.” House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518, 537, 126 S.Ct. 2064, 165 L.Ed.2d 1 (2006) (quoting Schlup, 513 U.S. at 324, 115 S.Ct. 851). Stroman's proffered evidence of mental problems falls far short of this demanding standard. The district court correctly applied this standard.

As to his claim of ineffective process, Stroman points to a “systemic failure of the [Texas] habeas system to provide competent counsel to investigate and present habeas claims to the Texas courts.” There is no constitutional right to counsel in post-conviction proceedings. Thus, the district court correctly noted that numerous Fifth Circuit decisions reject this premise as a ground for habeas relief. See, e.g., Ruiz v. Quarterman, 460 F.3d 638, 644 (5th Cir.2006) (“Yet the law of this Court is clear: ineffective state habeas counsel does not excuse failure to raise claims in state habeas proceedings.”).

Stroman also mistakenly claims that a different Ruiz decision— Ruiz v. Quarterman, 504 F.3d 523 (5th Cir.2007)—excuses his failure to exhaust his claims. Ruiz held that Tex.Code Crim. Proc., art. 11.071, § 5(a)(1), did not serve, under unusual circumstances, as an independent and adequate state bar when the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals failed to state the basis for its rejection of a successive petition. Here, Stroman never filed a successive state petition, and thus, there never was a § 5(a) ruling. The Fifth Circuit has held post- Ruiz that § 5(a) remains an independent and adequate state ground for the purpose of imposing a procedural bar. See Hughes v. Quarterman, 530 F.3d 336, 342 (5th Cir.2008); see also Rocha v. Thaler, 619 F.3d 387 (5th Cir.2010) (denying an application for a COA as an abuse of the writ under § 5), clarified and panel rehearing denied, 626 F.3d 815 (5th Cir.2010). Ruiz does not excuse Stroman's failure to exhaust.

B. Stroman's Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claims

Stroman has properly exhausted two ineffective assistance of counsel claims: one for his counsel's failure to challenge a juror, and another for his counsel's failure to object to purported hearsay. The record demonstrates, however, that the district court carefully and correctly analyzed both prongs of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Stroman cannot demonstrate an arguable infringement of his right to effective assistance of counsel. Reasonable jurists could not debate that the state court's denial of relief must be sustained under AEDPA.

IV. CONCLUSION