For the full story of what appears to be the imminent release of this serial killer, see this article:
_________________________________________________
http://www.dallasobserver.com/issues/2003-06-19/news/feature.html
_________________________________________________

From what I can gather, the CCA struck the trial court's deadly weapon finding from the defendant's plea on a theory that the State provided inadequate notice of her intent to seek it. Defendant Watts pled to 60 years on burglary of a habitation w/intent to commit a felony other than theft. The deletion of the DW finding was a net gain of about thiry-five years to the defendant. In exchange for leading law enforcement to the remaining bodies of his victims and at the request of the victim's families, the state immunized defendant for the unsolved murders. He confessed to murdering thirteen Houston-area young women from 1981-1982. The text of the per curiam, unpublished case is below. I know the prosecutors who handled this thing must feel low; my heart goes out to them. Can anyone post the application for the writ or explain the circumstances which led to the CCA ruling? Does the court's order consist of only two words (relief granted)?

__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Ex parte Watts
NO. 70,786
MAR 01, 1989

County: Harris
Offense: Habeas Corpus

Relief Granted.
Tex.Crim.App. 1989.
Ex parte Watts
766 S.W.2d 261 (Table)
END OF DOCUMENT

[This message was edited by BLeonard on 11-07-04 at .]

[This message was edited by BLeonard on 11-07-04 at .]

[This message was edited by BLeonard on 11-07-04 at .]

[This message was edited by BLeonard on 11-07-04 at .]

No doubt that if the same allegation were raised today, the CCA would deny relief. Much has changed since that order was entered.

The writ is no longer a game. Fundamental defects don't exist. Failure to object is a procedural default. In other words, the CCA plays fair with both sides and pays attention to claims that are genuine.

I was very interested to see a decision with such devastating consequences for those agencies and families concerned so delivered: a two-word, per curiam, unpublished opinion. Not surprised, mind you, just interested. Does anyone have the back story? [This message was edited by BLeonard on 11-07-04 at .]

[This message was edited by BLeonard on 11-07-04 at .]

The manner in which the order was issued is not so unusual. No doubt a district judge entered some specific findings of fact and conclusions of law that were forwarded to the CCA. The CCA, by its short order, simply adopted those findings and conclusions and incorporated them into its holding. It is actually a fairly efficient method for addressing the thousands of writs heard each year.

Watts is not going to be released. He was recently extradited to Michigan and is being prosecuted for a murder that occurred there a long time ago. I have been told the case against him is a good one.

Here's an article that offers somekind of explanation. http://www.detnews.com/2004/metro/0411/06/metro-326997.htm ("In sentencing Watts, Shaver ruled that he had used a deadly weapon -- the bathtub filled with water -- in an attempt to kill Lister. The deadly-weapon finding meant that Watts had to serve his full 60-year sentence, without time off for good behavior. He would either die behind bars or be an old man when he got out.

But in 1989, an appeals court ruled that Watts had not been properly notified of the finding, and was thus entitled to good-behavior credit.")

I guess they mean the DW finding was improperly tacked on too late.

As I recall, the plea was taken and Watts received 60 years. No deadly weapon finding was sought or included as a finding in the judgment. Years later, the parole notice was received and prosecutors submitted a nunc pro tunc judgment that contained a deadly weapon finding. This was set aside by the CCA, making the defendant eligible for parole.

If the DW got tacked on years later through a nunc order, I can see the problem. I'm not so sanguine about his chances in Michigan. Of course, I am working from a documentary I saw on TV. On that program, it aappears that the Michigan prosecutors are having to rely on the eyewitness testimony of one witness. As I understand it there is no DNA.