Texas Appeals Court Denies Nueces County DA’s Attempt to Halt Unintended Execution of John Ramirez

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (TCCA) has denied a stay of exe­cu­tion to a Texas man fac­ing an October 5, 2022 exe­cu­tion date that was sched­uled as a result of a death-war­rant motion the local dis­trict attor­ney says was against his office pol­i­cy and ​“uneth­i­cal.”

In a September 22 order issued with­out opin­ion, the TCCA reject­ed an effort by John Henry Ramirez and Nueces County District Attorney Mark Gonzalez to with­draw the death war­rant issued by 94^th Judicial District Court Judge Bobby Galvan in April 2022. The deci­sion does not affirm, but allows to stand, Galvan’s order refus­ing to vacate Ramirez’s execution date. 

Ramirez was sen­tenced to death in 2008 for the 2004 rob­bery-mur­der of Pablo Castro, a con­ve­nience store clerk.

Gonzalez, a for­mer defense attor­ney who was elect­ed in 2016 on a plat­form of crim­i­nal jus­tice reform, faced crit­i­cism after his office obtained a death war­rant for Ramirez. On April 14, 2022, two days after Galvan grant­ed coun­ty pros­e­cu­tors’ motion to set an exe­cu­tion date, Gonzalez attempt­ed to with­draw the warrant. 

Stopping just short of call­ing the motion unau­tho­rized, Gonzalez told the court, ​“The Assistant District Attorney who most recent­ly moved for an exe­cu­tion date in this cause was not aware of my desire in this mat­ter and did not con­sult me pri­or to mov­ing for an exe­cu­tion date.” ​“The under­signed District Attorney for Nueces County has the firm belief that the death penal­ty is uneth­i­cal and should not be imposed on Mr. Ramirez or any oth­er per­son while the under­signed occu­pies the office in ques­tion,” he wrote.

Speaking more direct­ly, Ramirez told the Corpus Christi Caller Times ​“I’ve been open about not want­i­ng to seek the death penal­ty, and I think it’d be hyp­o­crit­i­cal of me as a per­son not want­i­ng to seek the death penal­ty and then set­ting a date of exe­cu­tion for some­one, for it to be carried out.”

On April 26, 2022, while the with­draw­al motion was pend­ing, four of Castro’s nine chil­dren filed an ami­cus brief ask­ing for the exe­cu­tion to go for­ward. On May 20, 2022, the Texas Attorney General’s office sub­mit­ted a let­ter in oppo­si­tion, assert­ing that Gonzalez’s ​“shift­ing eth­i­cal posi­tion” did not pro­vide grounds to with­draw the death war­rant. Edward Marshall, chief of the attor­ney general’s Criminal Appeals Division, argued that once the death war­rant had been issued, the District Court did not have the author­i­ty to withdraw it.

Marshall’s rep­re­sen­ta­tion flew in the face of the views expressed by dozens of Texas leg­is­la­tors and Cameron County District Attorney Luis Saenz dur­ing April 14, 2022 leg­isla­tive hear­ings relat­ing to the sched­uled exe­cu­tion of Melissa Lucio. During those hear­ings, described by reporters as ​“heat­ed,” leg­is­la­tors pressed Saenz to with­draw Lucio’s death war­rant cit­ing evi­dence of prob­a­ble inno­cence and police mis­con­duct. Saenz agreed with the leg­is­la­tors that he had the pow­er to with­draw the war­rant and even­tu­al­ly agreed that he would do so if the TCCA did not issue a stay. The point became moot when the court halt­ed Lucio’s execution. 

Galvan denied Gonzalez’s motion on June 21, say­ing ​“I’m not sure that I have the pow­er to do so.” However, after the hear­ing, Ramirez’s lawyer, Seth Kretzer, told Associated Press at the time, ​“It is unprece­dent­ed for an unopposed/​joint motion to with­draw a death war­rant to be denied.” Kretzer refused to crit­i­cize Gonzalez for the issuance of the war­rant, telling CNHI News, ​“While per­haps D.A. Gonzalez should have more quick­ly informed his staff as to his posi­tion, a new day is dawn­ing in America where elect­ed dis­trict attor­neys will stand up to exe­cu­tion errors extrap­o­lat­ed from a prior generation.”

Ramirez’s case attract­ed nation­al atten­tion in 2021 when Texas denied his request to have his pas­tor audi­bly pray and lay hands on him dur­ing his exe­cu­tion. The U.S. Supreme Court stayed his exe­cu­tion in September 2021 to review his claims that Texas’ refusal vio­lat­ed his rights under the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act to free exer­cise of reli­gion. The Court ruled in his favor on March 24, 2022.

Kretzer told The New York Times that he was prepar­ing for Mr. Ramirez to receive a ​“con­sti­tu­tion­al­ly appro­pri­ate exe­cu­tion” on October 5.