Summary:

Neville and Michael Wayne Hall worked at the same grocery store where 19 year old Amy Robinson was employed as a sacker.

Robinson suffered from Turner's syndrome, which inhibits physical development, and a diminished mental capacity.

One morning on the way to work together, they saw Robinson riding her bicycle and offered her a ride. Instead, they took her to a rural field in Fort Worth where she was shot repeatedly with a pellet gun, then killed with shots from a .22-caliber rifle as she begged for her life.

During the investigation of her disappearance, Hall’s stepbrother told police that Hall had told him that he and Neville had abducted and killed Robinson.

The two were arrested attempting to cross over into Mexico. Upon arrest, Neville acknowledged killing Robinson and told police where to find Robinson’s body.

Neville told police that he and Hall were white supremacists and that they wanted to kill blacks. Neville and Hall purchased two .22-caliber rifles and ammunition and practiced shooting the rifles.

Neville boasted about the slaying and told investigators, as well as TV and newspaper reporters, that he laughed as Robinson lay on the ground, gasping for air.

Neville explained in a TV interview that he and Hall killed the woman "for the adrenaline rush" and that Robinson was used for "target practice."

Both Hall and Neville were convicted of Murder and sentenced to death. Neville was released from prison eight months prior to the murder after serving two years of a 10-year prison term for burglary.

Citations:

Neville v. Dretke, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2004 WL 2049335 (N.D. Tex. 2004) (Habeas)
Neville v. Dretke, 423 F.3d 474 (5th Cir. 2005) (Habeas)

Final Meal:
 

Final Words:

Neville apologized profusely, addressed his victim's mother by name as she and her two daughters stood close to the glass with their arms around each other. He expressed love to them. "I hope you can find it in yourselves to forgive me and I hope all this here will kind of settle your pain. And I hope the Lord will give you comfort and peace. I just want you to know I am very sorry for what I have done. If I see Amy on the other side, I will tell her how much you love and miss her. And we will have a lot to talk about." Neville then turned toward his parents, who watched through an adjacent window. "I am sorry for putting you through all this pain and stuff," he said. "I love you all and I will see you on the other side."

ClarkProsecutor.org

Texas Department of Criminal Justice

Inmate: Neville, Robert James Jr.
Date of Birth: 10/05/1974
TDCJ#: 999293
Date Received: 01/05/1999
Education: 11 years
Occupation: Laborer
Date of Offense: 02/15/98
County of Conviction: Tarrant County
Race: White
Gender: Male
Hair Color: Red
Eye Color: Blue
Height: 6 ft 00 in
Weight: 140

Texas Attorney General

Media Advisory

Wednesday, February 1, 2006

Robert James Neville Scheduled For Execution

AUSTIN – Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott offers the following information about Robert James Neville, who is scheduled to be executed after 6 p.m. Wednesday, Feb. 8, 2006. On December 9, 1998, Robert James Neville was sentenced to die for the kidnaping and murder of Amy Robinson. A summary of the evidence presented at trial follows.

FACTS OF THE CRIME

On Feb. 15, 1998, Robert Neville and a friend, Michael Wayne Hall, saw 19-year-old Amy Robinson riding her bicycle to a grocery store in Arlington where she worked.

The two men offered Robinson a ride but took her to a rural field in Fort Worth, where they shot her to death. Neville worked at the same grocery store where Robinson was employed as a sacker.

Two hours after her work day was to have begun, a store employee called Robinson’s family to say that the young woman had not arrived at work. Her family called the Arlington police.

Later that day, police contacted Hall and Neville. Neville told police that he had both worked with Robinson and met with her socially. He told police that he had not seen her in a couple of months.

During the subsequent investigation, however, Hall’s stepbrother told police that Hall had told him that he and Neville had abducted and killed Robinson. A warrant was issued for the arrest of both Neville and Hall. On March 3, the two men were arrested at Eagle Pass, as they tried to cross into Mexico.

In statements given to law enforcement, Neville acknowledged killing Robinson and told police where to find Robinson’s body. He said that one day when he and Hall had gotten drunk at the home of Neville’s grandmother, Neville told Hall that he would “just like to [go] out and kill somebody....”

Hall suggested that they purchase guns. Neville told police that he and Hall were white supremacists with the Aryan Brotherhood and that they wanted to kill blacks. Neville and Hall purchased two .22-caliber rifles and ammunition and practiced shooting the rifles. Both Neville and Hall were sentenced to death for kidnaping and murdering Amy Robinson.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

• Mar. 24, 1998 – A Tarrant County grand jury indicted Neville for capital murder.

• Dec. 4, 1998 – A jury found Neville guilty of capital murder.

• Dec. 9, 1998 – After a separate punishment hearing, the trial court assessed a sentence of death.

• Dec. 1, 1999 – The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Neville’s conviction and sentence.

• Aug. 7, 2000 – Neville filed a state application for writ of habeas corpus in the trial court.

• Mar. 28, 2001 – The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied habeas relief.

• July 19, 2001 – Neville filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in a Fort Worth federal district court.

• Sept. 14, 2004 – The federal district court denied habeas relief.

• Sept. 24, 2004 – Neville filed a notice of appeal with the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

• Aug. 29, 2005 – The 5th Circuit Court denied Neville’s application for a Certificate of Appealability, effectively rejecting his appeal.

• Jan. 10, 2006 – Neville filed with the U.S. Supreme Court a motion seeking permission to file an out-of-time petition for writ of certiorari.

• Jan. 23, 2006 – The Supreme Court denied Neville’s motion.

EVIDENCE RELATED TO PUNISHMENT

During the punishment phase of Neville’s trial, evidence was introduced that Neville had previously been convicted of burglary of a vehicle and burglary of a habitation. When he was about sixteen or seventeen, Neville had sexual contact with an eleven-year-old girl, a nine- or ten-year-old boy, and a seven-year-old boy. When he was fourteen, Neville tossed kittens from a rooftop, and when he was about sixteen or seventeen, he tied a cat by its tail to a tree and struck the cat with a pole. When he worked at Kroger’s, Neville had ridiculed a mentally challenged coworker and had avoided sacking groceries for minority shoppers. An expert for the State, Dr. Randall Price, testified that Neville was not mentally ill but had a severe psychopathic personality. Dr. Price testified that Neville expressed enjoyment and excitement during Robinson’s murder.

Convicted torture killer of 19-year-old girl executed

Houston Chronicle

Associated Press - Feb. 8, 2006

HUNTSVILLE — A paroled burglar who claimed he wanted to be a serial killer of minorities was executed tonight for the torture-slaying eight years ago of a 19-year-old mentally impaired woman who once worked with him.

Robert Neville Jr., apologizing profusely, addressed his victim's mother by name as she and her two daughters stood close to the glass with their arms around each other. He expressed love to them. "I hope you can find it in yourselves to forgive me and I hope all this here will kind of settle your pain. And I hope the Lord will give you comfort and peace. I just want you to know I am very sorry for what I have done," he said. Referring to his victim, Amy Robinson, 19, Neville, said, "If I see Amy on the other side, I will tell her how much you love and miss her. And we will have a lot to talk about."

Neville then turned toward his parents, who watched through an adjacent window. "I am sorry for putting you through all this pain and stuff," he said. "I love you all and I will see you on the other side." Seven minutes later at 6:19 p.m. CST, he was pronounced dead. Neville, 31, was the third prisoner executed this year and the first of three over the next 15 days in the nation's most active capital punishment state.

Neville and a companion, Michael Wayne Hall, were condemned for the fatal shooting of Robinson, who was abducted as she rode her bike to work at a Dallas-area supermarket. She was taken to a remote area of Tarrant County where she was shot repeatedly with a pellet gun, then killed with shots from a .22-caliber rifle as she begged for her life. Hall, 26, remains on death row. He does not have an execution date. "I think they just thought of her as you would think of a cat or dog or something," said Alan Levy, the Tarrant County assistant district attorney who prosecuted the pair.

At the time of the Feb. 15, 1998, slaying, Neville had been on parole about eight months after serving two years of a 10-year prison term for burglary. About an hour before his scheduled execution time, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected his final appeals.

His lawyers had hoped to block the execution with appeals in the federal courts that questioned whether the lethal drugs used in the punishment were humane and that Neville suffered a mental illness brought on by lupus that should disqualify him from the death penalty.

The Supreme Court has ruled mentally retarded people are ineligible for capital punishment but has not extended the blanket prohibition to the mentally ill.

Neville and Hall were arrested about two weeks after Robinson was reported missing. They were stopped at a customs checkpoint near Eagle Pass as they were trying to cross into Mexico. They told authorities they could find Robinson's body in a grassy field in the Trinity River bottoms just north of Arlington.

Robinson suffered from a genetic disorder, Turner's syndrome, a rare chromosome disorder found only in women and characterized by short stature and lack of sexual development at puberty. Prosecutors described her as "easy prey," which is how Neville and Hall, days after their arrest, characterized their victim as they spoke with reporters and laughed about how Robinson died as she pleaded to live.

The pair had worked with her at an Arlington Kroger store before they were fired and knew the route she took as she rode her bike to work. When they offered her a ride, she accepted. "We had a bet going to see who could shoot and kill the most people between the two of us," Neville told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram two weeks after his arrest, explaining that he and Hall wanted to become serial killers whose victims were racial minorities. "No matter if it was blacks or Mexicans — anybody as long as they weren't our color." Robinson was part Native American.

Neville declined to speak with reporters in the weeks before his scheduled execution. Next week, another inmate, Clyde Smith, 32, faces injection for the robbery and slaying of a Houston taxi driver in 1992.

Man faces execution for slaying

Defense arguing Neville is mentally ill

By Jeff Mosier - Dallas Morning News

Wednesday, February 8, 2006

Eight years ago this month, Robert Neville Jr. and Michael Hall decided they were in the "mood to kill someone." They discussed shooting a black person but changed their minds and agreed that former grocery store co-worker Amy Robinson was an easy target. The 19-year-old was mentally challenged, more than a foot shorter than either man and probably thought of them as friends.

Three weeks after she disappeared, Amy was found shot to death with a pellet gun and a .22-caliber rifle in an isolated Fort Worth field. Today, Mr. Neville, 31, is scheduled to die by injection for that crime. "You hope that it brings the family some closure," said David Montague, spokesman for the Tarrant County district attorney's office. "You don't know that it will, but you hope it does."

Mr. Montague said the murder of Ms. Robinson was a shocking case that horrified people like few others. She was a trusting woman with the mind of a 14-year-old girl, and her killers boasted on television about torturing her before shooting her to death. They were arrested while trying to escape into Mexico. "She was such a young and innocent person," Mr. Montague said. "When some of the details came out about how she was tormented before she was killed, it struck a chord with people. It was brutal and senseless."

Mr. Hall was also sentenced to death, but an execution date has not been set for him. In May, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals rejected a claim that Mr. Hall was mentally retarded at the time of the crime and should be spared the death penalty.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2002 that mentally retarded people cannot be executed. Attorneys representing Mr. Neville are making similar arguments this week to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in an attempt to stop the execution.

Fort Worth attorney Rick Alley is asking the court to give mentally ill inmates, such as Mr. Neville, the same protection from execution as mentally retarded people and minors.

Mr. Neville suffers from lupus, a chronic autoimmune disease that in his case attacks the brain, Mr. Alley said. He said the illness makes his client act irrationally and dangerously and often gives him "psychopathic tendencies." "He is so mentally ill that to execute him would be cruel and unusual punishment," Mr. Alley said.

Barring a stay of execution, Mr. Neville will be given four hours Wednesday morning to spend with family and friends at the Polunsky Unit near Livingston, Texas. After that, he'll be transferred to the Huntsville Unit.

There, Mr. Neville will receive a last meal and could meet with attorneys and a spiritual adviser. About 6 p.m., the execution will begin. Ms. Robinson's mother, two sisters and one current and one retired Arlington police officer are expected to witness the execution, state officials said.

Ms. Robinson's grandmother Carolyn Barker, who became an outspoken victims' rights advocate after her granddaughter's death, is not scheduled to attend the execution. She lobbied for workplace laws to protect minors and mentally retarded people from felons and helped create Our Garden of Angels, a sanctuary for families of homicide victims.

Ray Stewart, a friend of Mrs. Barker and former victim liaison with the Tarrant County district's attorney's office, said the creation of the garden with its more than 80 crosses has been cathartic for Ms. Robinson's family. "It was a chance to meditate on the good parts of life," he said. "Carolyn turned her attention to helping others survive through something like that. It strengthened her and gave her purpose."

ProDeathPenalty.com

Eighteen-year-old Michael Hall and his friend Robert Neville decided to kill someone because Hall was angry that he had a "sucky-ass" life. They started searching for the right victim and preparing for their crime by obtaining rifles, pellet guns, a crossbow, and ammunition.

After much looking, Hall and Neville finally chose nineteen-year-old Amy Robinson, a friend and former coworker, because she trusted them and they "didn't have to put bruises on her to get her in the car."

The evidence also revealed that Amy had a genetic disorder that made her small and mentally and physically slow. She stood four feet five inches tall and had the mental capacity of a third or fourth grader.

On February 15, 1998, Hall and Neville went looking for Amy in order to carry out their murderous plan. They checked her work schedule at the Kroger grocery store and then lay in wait for her to ride by on her bicycle on her way to work.

When the pair saw Amy, they coaxed her into the car, promising to drop her at work after they circled around in the country. As Neville drove, Amy complained that she did not want to be late for work. Neville then pretended to have a flat tire and pulled the car over on a dirt road by a remote field.

Hall and Neville got out of the car and walked into the field carrying their weapons while an unsuspecting Amy waited in the car listening to the radio. At some point, Hall persuaded Amy to get out of the car, telling her she needed to go talk to Neville near a tree.

As Amy walked toward Neville, he fired a crossbow at her several times. Neville missed each shot, but Amy became angry when the last arrow grazed her hair. When Amy started walking back to the car, Hall shot her in the back of her leg with his pellet gun. Hall and Neville laughed while Amy cried in pain.

Meanwhile, Neville returned to the car and got his .22 caliber rifle. When Hall managed to maneuver Amy back into the field, Neville shot her in the chest. Hall then shot her in the chest "three or four or six times" with the pellet gun. Amy fell to the ground making loud noises and shaking.

Hall then stood over her and stared for five to ten minutes. The pair worried that someone would hear Amy, so Neville shot her in the head, killing her instantly.

Hall and Neville then left Amy and her bicycle in an area where they would not be easily discovered. A few days later, they returned to the scene. Neville fired shots into Amy's dead body, and Hall took keys and money from her pocket.

When Amy's family and coworkers realized she was missing, a massive search ensued. More than two weeks later, authorities focused on Hall and Neville. Fearing they would be caught, the pair fled Arlington but were soon arrested when they attempted to cross the border into Mexico. The authorities found Amy's body on the day of the arrest.

Texas Execution Information Center by David Carson

Txexecutions.org

Robert James Neville Jr., 31, was executed by lethal injection on 8 February 2006 in Huntsville, Texas for the kidnapping and murder of a 19-year-old woman.

On 15 December 1998, Neville, then 23, and Michael Hall, 18, were driving in Arlington when they spotted Amy Robinson, 19, riding her bicycle to work. Robinson and Neville worked at the same grocery store.

Robinson was mentally challenged and also suffered from Turner's syndrome, a genetic disorder that stunted her growth and sexual development at puberty.

After Robinson accepted the ride, the men drove her to a rural area in Fort Worth, and began shooting her. First, Hall shot her in the leg with a pellet gun. Next, Hall and Neville shot her seven times with a .22-caliber rifle.

That day, a store employee called Robinson's family to notify them that she had not shown up for work. The family then called the police, who questioned Neville and Hall. Neville told the police that he worked with Robinson and knew her socially, but had not seen her in a couple of months.

Two weeks later, Hall's mother reported to the police that Hall had been missing for several days. Hall's stepbrother told the police that Hall had told him he and Neville had abducted and killed Robinson. Neville and Hall were arrested on 3 March in Eagle Pass, as they were attempting to cross into Mexico.

Neville admitted killing Robinson and told police where to find her body. He said that one day when he and Hall were drunk, he told Hall that he "would just like to [go] out and kill somebody." They initially discussed killing a black person, but then changed their minds and agreed that Amy Robinson, being small and mentally challenged, was an easier target. Robinson was also part Native American.

After his arrest, Robinson told reporters that he and Hall wanted to become serial killers of racial minorities. "We had a bet going to see who could shoot and kill the most people between the two of us," he said. "No matter if it was blacks or Mexicans - anybody as long as they weren't our color."

Neville had a prior conviction for burglary of a motor vehicle. He served two years of a ten-year sentence and was released on parole in June 1997.

Additionally, evidence was introduced at his punishment hearing that at the age of 16 or 17, he sexually molested boys and girls aged 7 to 11, and he tortured cats. At the grocery store where he worked, Neville had ridiculed a mentally challenged coworker and avoided sacking groceries for minority customers.

A jury convicted Neville of capital murder in December 1998 and sentenced him to death. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence in December 1999. All of his subsequent appeals in state and federal court were denied. Michael Wayne Hall was also convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. He is on death row as of this writing.

"I hope you can find it in yourselves to forgive me, and I hope all this here will kind of settle your pain. And I hope the Lord will give you comfort and peace. I just want you to know I am very sorry for what I have done," Neville said in his final statement. "If I see Amy on the other side, I will tell her how much you love and miss her. And we will have a lot to talk about."

Neville then turned toward his parents and said, "I am sorry for putting you through all this pain and stuff. I love you all, and I will see you on the other side." The lethal injection was then started. He was pronounced dead at 6:19 p.m.

National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty

Robert Neville Jr., TX - February 8

Do Not Execute Robert Neville Jr.!

Robert James Neville Jr., a 31-year-old white man, is facing execution on Feb. 8, 2006 for one count of aggravated murder. In 1998 Neville and his accomplice, Michael Hall, drove their coworker, 19-year-old Amy Robinson, to a remote field in Tarrant County where they shot and killed her. The two were captured by U.S. Customs agents near the Mexican border.

Neville doesn’t contest his guilt in the killing of Ms. Robinson. However, for Neville to be put to death, it is necessary that he have committed aggravated murder, in this case murder and kidnapping. Neville claims that he did not kidnap Robinson.

Neville says that she got into the car with him and Hall willingly and without coercion. Neville raised the issue of his innocence of the kidnapping charge in a habeas corpus petition made to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, but the court refused to consider this issue, as Neville had not previously raised it in a Texas appellate court.

Because Neville already had filed a habeas petition in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he could not address the kidnapping issue in another petition. This left Neville stuck. A man who might not be guilty of a capital crime may now be executed because the proper appeal was not filed in the proper court.

What’s more, Neville may have been suffering from a psychiatric disorder. The key to his defense was that he had lupus, a disease which causes psychosis in some patients. Yet his attorney made no effort to determine potential jurors’ attitudes toward the disease during jury selection.

It is possible that Neville actually killed Ms. Robinson, but likely that the crime did not meet the standard for Neville to qualify for the death penalty. There is also a serious question whether Neville was mentally ill when he committed the crime, and whether he will be so on the day of his execution. For these reasons, we must not allow Texas to put Robert Neville Jr. to death.

Please write Gov. Rick Perry requesting that he stop the execution of Robert Neville Jr.!

Tarrant killers to be executed in February

By John Moritz - Fort Worth Star Telegram

Mon, Dec. 26, 2005

AUSTIN - Two Death Row inmates from Tarrant County who were condemned in unrelated slayings are scheduled to be executed in early 2006. Robert James Neville Jr., one of two men sent to Death Row for the abduction, torture and killing of Amy Robinson, 19, of Arlington in February 1998, is scheduled to die Feb. 8.

Two weeks later, Steven Kenneth Staley, who gunned down restaurant manager Robert Read during a botched robbery of a far west Fort Worth Steak and Ale in October 1989, is scheduled to be executed. If the executions are carried out, they will be the first involving Tarrant County inmates since August 2004.

Staley had been scheduled to die in March, but the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted him a stay of execution so his attorney could pursue claims that Staley’s mental condition has deteriorated so much that he no longer comprehends the punishment that awaits him. His execution is now set for Feb. 23.

According to court testimony and news accounts, Neville, 31, and a friend, Michael Wayne Hall, offered to give Robinson a ride Feb. 15, 1998, when they saw her riding her bicycle to work at a Kroger store in Arlington where she sacked groceries.

Robinson, who was learning-impaired, knew the pair as former co-workers and had considered them to be friends. Instead of taking Robinson to the store, they took her to a field in east Fort Worth where they shot at her with a pellet gun and a pistol-grip crossbow. She was also beaten and begged for her life before she was killed by rifle shots to her chest and head.

Neville and Hall were arrested March 3, 1998, in Eagle Pass. Neville boasted about the slaying and told investigators, as well as TV and newspaper reporters, that he laughed as Robinson lay on the ground, gasping for air. Her body was not discovered for 16 days.

“It was an extremely brutal murder,” said Arlington police spokeswoman Christy Gilfour, who covered the slaying as a reporter for the Star-Telegram. Neville expressed remorse after his death sentence was handed down. “I feel if ... I get this over with now, hopefully my ... execution will bring some kind of peace to the victim’s family,” he said at the end of his trial. Hall, 26, was also convicted and sentenced to death. His execution date has not been set.

2005’s final execution was Shannon Charles Thomas on Nov. 16. He was one of five Harris County inmates executed in 2005. There were 19 inmates executed in 2005, the lowest number since 2001 and far below the high of 40 in 2000.

Texas remains the nation’s leader in executions since the Supreme Court’s ban on capital punishment was lifted in 1976. Since executions resumed in Huntsville, 355 inmates have been put to death, meaning that Texas has accounted for about 35 percent of all modern-era executions in the nation.

State Executes Convicted Torture Killer

KWTX-TV

Convicted torture killer Robert Neville, Jr., 31, was executed just after 6 p.m. Wednesday in Huntsville for the 1998 slaying of Amy Robinson, 19, of Arlington, a mentally impaired woman with whom he once worked at a grocery store. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to block the execution earlier Wednesday.

Prosecutors say Neville and Michael Wayne Hall, who is also on death row, kidnapped Robinson as she bicycled to work and took her to a remote area of Tarrant County where she was tortured and then shot to death.

Neville explained in a TV interview that he and Hall killed the woman "for the adrenaline rush" and that Robinson was used for "target practice."

Neville was the first of three prisoners scheduled for execution over the next 15 days. Next week, 32-year-old death row inmate Clyde Smith faces execution for the robbery and slaying of a Houston taxi driver in 1992.

Click Here For More Information On Scheduled Executions From The Texas Department Of Criminal Justice

Canadian Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty

ROBERT NEVILLE

Hello, my name is Robert Neville. I am currently on death row and have been here for 2 years. I spend my time reading, writing, and praying that one day I will be able to hold my 11 year old daughter once again. I am begging for help ! I need help legally, financially, and personally. Financially, my family is unable to pay for funeral costs and sufficient legal help. The money you send will go toward funeral costs, legal help ... All I need is help and a friend. My mother will be collecting funds for my legal fees and funeral costs. So please help if you can.... Visit Webpage for more info at: http://ccadp.org/robertneville.htm If you'd like to be a pen friend I would appreciate that also. Sincerely,

Robert Neville 999293
3872 FM 350 South
Livingston Texas 77351 USA

Arlington Mother Prepares For Murderer's Execution

CBS11TV.com

Feb 8, 2006

(CBS 11 News) ARLINGTON - A few clothes are about all Tina Robinson has.The Grand Prairie mother loaded them into her car Tuesday evening for a journey that she's waited eight years to make.“I'm being there for my daughter and for my other daughters and I feel that's real important,” Robinson told CBS 11's J.D. Miles. Robinson said she wants to see Neville die. She will be a witness when the 29-year-old is executed Wednesday.

Neville murdered Robinson's 19-year-old daughter, Amy, in 1998.It was cold sinister attack that Neville and his accomplice, Michael Hall, admitted to in interviews after being caught at the Mexican border.Neville and Hall said they shot the girl in a Tarrant County field after offering her a ride to work.The grisly details have haunted the family ever since.

The eight years since Amy Robinson's murder have been a struggle for the family emotionally and financially. In fact, they can barely afford the trip to Huntsville to witness the execution, her mother said. “My doctors have told me not to go there. I see a psychiatrist, he told me not to go there. My friends have told me not to go there but as a mother you have to go there,” Tina Robinson said.Robinson said her daughter's last word was "Robert." Only the word "Amy" from Neville's last breath will bring peace to Tina Robinson and that's why she's headed to Huntsville.

Amy is going to live forever

By Mark Agee - Fort Worth Star Telegram

Wed, Feb. 08, 2006

A white cross with Amy Robinson's name painted in black letters stands near where she was tortured and killed almost eight years ago. Carolyn Barker, her grandmother, said the cross, the first of 92 erected for crime victims at Our Garden of Angels in Euless, will stay there long after Robinson's two killers are buried and forgotten.

Robert Neville is to die after 6 p.m. today, a week shy of the eighth anniversary of Amy's killing. "Through the garden, Amy is going to live forever. He won't," Barker said. "She should always be remembered. Not him."

Robinson was a slight, dark-haired 19-year-old who had Turner's syndrome, which inhibits physical development, and a diminished mental capacity. Robinson planned to go to a school in San Marcos with hopes of helping teach mentally retarded children. "She was so sweet," Barker said. "She just loved kids and wanted to help people who had problems learning, like she did."

Robinson wanted to live on her own and work for a year before going to school. She moved out of Barker's home, rented a room from an older woman who lived along West Division Street and got a job as a bagger at a Kroger grocery store on South Bowen Road, riding her bike the mile to work for six months.

Neville, now 31, and Michael Hall, now 26, had been fired from the Kroger, where they met Robinson. They later told reporters that before being arrested on an Arlington warrant while crossing into Mexico, they planned to become serial killers who targeted racial minorities. "We had a bet going to see who could shoot and kill the most people between the two of us," Neville told the Star-Telegram in a jailhouse interview two weeks after his capture. "No matter if it was blacks or Mexicans -- anybody as long as they weren't our color. ... I've always liked to live my life on the edge."

They went to the Kroger on Sunday, Feb. 15, 1998, looking for a mentally retarded black man who worked there. When they discovered he was not working that day, they checked the schedule and found that Robinson, who was part Native American, would be at work soon.

Knowing that she rode her bike down Division Street, they found her and offered her a ride to work. They put her bike in back of Neville's Chevrolet El Camino and drove to Mosier Valley Road, near the Fort Worth-Euless border, just outside Arlington. There, they shot her with a pellet gun to torture her. They laughed during interviews as they described how she begged for her life.

Neville, who said they did it "just for the adrenaline rush," ended her life with a shot to the head from a .22-caliber rifle. Both men said they killed Robinson because she was "easy," a trusting target who couldn't fight back. "They chose someone weak," Barker said. "They were cowards."

Neville, who initially waived his appeals and asked for the death penalty but later fought it, has all but exhausted his options. The Texas Criminal Court of Appeals declined Monday to stop the punishment.

Neville's attorney, Richard Allee, told The Associated Press that he is taking the case to federal courts, saying the drugs used in the execution constitute cruel punishment and are unconstitutional.

Allee also said Neville may be mentally retarded and suffering from the long-term effects of lupus, which would make him ineligible for execution. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2002 that executing the mentally retarded is cruel and unusual. "That doesn't mean we're exonerating him, but the ultimate penalty of death is simply not appropriate," Allee told the AP. "He didn't choose to be born with lupus. And because of that, he does not have the kind of controls built into him that other people do."

Barker became a victim's-rights advocate and joined several groups after Robinson's death. An Amy Robinson Memorial Act was introduced in Congress but never passed. It would have required employers to notify employees if they were working with a sex offender. Neville had been required to register as a sex offender because of a conviction for indecency with a child.

Arlington police homicide Detective Jim Ford said the case drew community interest and ire because of its shocking nature. "There was nothing more terrible than the kidnapping and murder of a child. This child was mentally handicapped," Ford said. "This is one of the most terrible cases."

Barker's small memorial to Robinson on Mosier Valley Road has grown. Besides the crosses dedicated to slaying victims at Our Garden of Angels, there are statues, benches, a pond and a fountain. Ten more families of victims plan to erect crosses there. "I couldn't just put one cross up. Amy never liked to be by herself," Barker said. "But this is a garden we don't want to grow."

Amy's mother, Tina Robinson, could not be reached for comment. Barker said Tina Robinson plans to attend the execution. Barker said she will not be there. She said that she is happy with the sentence but that it brings little solace. "Her life meant a lot more to me than his," Barker said.

Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty

Robert Neville - ALIVE e.V. - Voices From Inside

Hello, my name is Robert Neville. I am 29 years of age (D.O.B. October 5, 1974). I have red hair and blue eyes. I am 6’1’’ in height and weigh 155 lbs. in weight. My blood-line is Irish, Scottish and American Indian. I have been on death row for 6 years. I was convicted of capital murder von December 19, 1998 and got to death row on January 5, 1999.

I pass my time by writing poetry, corresponding with friends and family, and reading just about anything I can get my hands on. I like subjects of animals, gardening, architecture, castles and history. I also like novels of course. As far as history goes, I prefer European, Italian and Ancient Greek history.

I am hoping to find a few good friends from around the world to correspond with, preferably someone over the age of 30, but will correspond with the younger crowd. I ask that anyone who chooses to write to me, that they be Gay-friends for I am a gay man and have been all of my life and will stay this way until my death. I’m not looking for any haters, just lot’s of love and respect. Also should anyone feel like writing to me, I ask that they be able to write good English. it doesn’t have to be perfect English, just readable.

Well, this is all I have for now. If you are searching for a friend to the end that let’s talk. Thanks! Lots of love!

Neville v. Dretke, 423 F.3d 474 (5th Cir. 2005) (Habeas)

Background: Following affirmance on appeal of defendant's state conviction for murder in the course of kidnapping and imposition of death penalty, defendant filed petition for writ of habeas corpus. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Terry R. Means, J., denied petition, and defendant sought certificate of appealability.

Holdings: The Court of Appeals, Edith Brown Clement, Circuit Judge, held that:

(1) habeas petitioner failed to exhaust his claims of actual innocence in state court, and thus such claims were procedurally defaulted and certificate of appealability (COA) would not issue;
(2) petitioner was not entitled to a stay to file a successive habeas petition with the state to exhaust claims;
(3) actual innocence exception to the procedural default doctrine did not apply; and
(4) petitioner failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel. Certificate of appealability denied.

EDITH BROWN CLEMENT, Circuit Judge:

The petitioner, Texas death row prisoner Robert James Neville, has been convicted of murder in the course of kidnapping and sentenced to death by a jury. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed his conviction on direct appeal,FN1 and denied his state habeas corpus petition which claimed ineffective assistance of counsel. Neville then filed a petition with the federal district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, stating several claims in addition to his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The district court denied the ineffective assistance of counsel claim on the merits, and denied the other claims on the grounds of procedural default. Neville requests a certificate of appealability (“COA”) to allow him to appeal the denial of his petition.

FN1. Initially, Neville requested a waiver of all appeals, and to be executed “as soon as legally possible.” However, because criminal appeals in Texas are automatic, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, without a brief from Neville, reviewed the record for fundamental error. Finding none, it affirmed the conviction.

I.

On February 15, 1998, in Arlington, Texas, Amy Robinson failed to report to work at the Kroger grocery store at 1:00 p.m and was reported missing. She was last seen leaving her house on her bicycle to ride to work.

In the course of the investigation of Robinson's disappearance, the police contacted Robert James Neville and Michael Hall, Robinson's former co-workers. Neville told the police that he was acquainted with Robinson personally and professionally, but that he did not have any information about her disappearance.

On February 28, the police were alerted by Hall's mother that Hall had been missing for several days. Hall's stepbrother told police that Hall had confided that he and Neville had abducted and killed Robinson. A warrant for their arrest was subsequently issued.

On March 3, Hall and Neville were arrested by the U.S. Customs Service in Eagle Pass, Texas, near the Mexican border. Neville admitted that he saw Robinson while driving with Hall around Arlington around 12:00 p.m. on February 15th, that he and Hall asked her if she wanted a ride to work, and that she accepted the ride.

He confessed that they stopped in a remote field in the Moslier Valley around 12:45 p.m. where Hall first shot Robinson in the leg with pellet gun, and then shot her with a seven round .22-caliber rifle. Neville told the police that he also shot Robinson, both in the chest and the head with a rifle. He later revealed the location of Robinson's body on a map, and the agents found her body.

Neville was tried for murder in the course of kidnapping, a capital offense under Texas state law. Tex. Penal Code §§ 19.02(b)(1) (murder); 19.03(a)(2) (capital murder). A jury convicted him, and sentenced him to death.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed his conviction on direct appeal, and denied a subsequent petition for writ of habeas corpus, which claimed ineffective assistance of counsel. *478 Neville filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in federal district court, raising five claims including that he is actually innocent of the charge of kidnapping; that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his counsel failed to question the jurors during voir dire about lupus, a disease that Neville claims affects his personality; that the Texas death penalty scheme unconstitutionally limits the jury's discretion; that the Texas clemency procedures violate substantive and procedural due process; and that the death penalty violates an international treaty, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”), which is binding on the United States. The federal district court denied his petition, dismissing the ineffective assistance of counsel claim on the merits, and dismissing the other claims on grounds of procedural default. Neville seeks a COA to appeal the denial.

* * *

Because reasonable jurists could not debate the conclusions of the district court, that four of Neville's claims are procedurally barred, and that Neville has failed to put forward sufficient evidence to establish that he was denied effective counsel, we DENY Neville's application for a COA on each of the issues raised. Without a COA, we lack jurisdiction to review the district court's denial of habeas relief.

Neville v. Dretke, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2004 WL 2049335 (N.D. Tex. 2004) (Habeas)

MEANS, J.
Texas death row inmate Robert James Neville, (“Petitioner” and “Neville”) has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 2254. Respondent is Douglas Dretke, the Director of the Correctional Institutions Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (“TDCJ-CID”). For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies each of the claims in this petition for writ of habeas corpus.

On February 15, 1998, Robert James Neville murdered Amy Robinson in the course of her kidnaping in Tarrant County, Texas. A jury convicted Neville of capital murder, and assessed his punishment at death by lethal injection. See State v. Neville, No. 0685474A (371st Dist. Ct., Tarrant County, Tex. Dec. 18, 1998). Neville waived his state appeals.FN1

Thereafter, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed the record of his trial for fundamental error and, having found none, affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence of death. See Neville v. State, No. 73,368 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (unpublished).

FN1. On August 23, 1999, Neville wrote the Clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals requesting that all present, pending and future appeals, writs, etc. be waived and my execution be carried out as soon as legally possible. I have discussed my intentions with my attorney, family and friends and have given it a great deal of thought. The choice is not rash nor based on emotions such as depression or hopelessness. I am rational, competent and fully aware of what I'm asking. Neville v. State, No. 73, 368 (Tex.Crim.App., Aug. 26, 1999).

Upon remand for hearing of this waiver, the trial court conducted an examination of Neville, admonishing him of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation, and eliciting the reasons for his decision to waive further appeals, as shown in the following excerpt:

Q. What is your reason for not wanting to continue with your appeals?

A. My family and the victim's family. I feel [if] I get this over with now, hopefully [my] execution will bring some kind of peace to the victim's family and keep my family from having to worry whether one of the days down the road, whether I'll still be alive or have an execution coming up. (Supp. St. Hab. Rep. Rec. at 20.) The trial court then found that Neville's action was voluntarily and intelligently made. ( Id. at 21.)

A petition for habeas corpus in state court was filed on August 7, 2000 (Record of state habeas proceeding, hereafter “SHR” at 2), complaining only that Neville “was denied effective assistance of counsel when trial counsel failed to voir dire on a critical punishment issue.” (SHR at 3, 6-9.) This application was denied on March 28, 2001. See Ex parte Neville, Writ No. 48, 694-01 (Tex.Cr.App.2001).

Claims - In five grounds for relief, Neville complains that he is actually innocent of the offense of capital murder, that trial counsel were ineffective in conducting voir dire of the jury panel, that the death penalty is inherently unconstitutional, and that the state clemency procedures are inadequate and violate an international treaty. For the reasons set out below, none of these allegations are sufficient to establish a right to the relief requested.

Procedural Bar - Respondent asserts a procedural bar to four of petitioner's claims. Federal courts will not consider the merits of a claim resolved by the state courts on an independent and adequate state law ground. See Lee v. Kemna, 534 U.S. 362, 375, 122 S.Ct. 877, 885, 151 L.Ed.2d 820 (2002); Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 729, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 2553, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991). Therefore, the Court will address these issues first.

To be adequate to bar federal review, a state-law ground must be “firmly established and regularly followed” at the time that it was violated, see Ford v. Georgia, 498 U.S. 411, 423-24, 111 S.Ct. 850, 857, 112 L.Ed.2d 935 (1991), and the state court's application of the procedural rule must not otherwise be exorbitant. See Lee v. Kemna, 534 U.S. at 376, 122 S.Ct. at 885. Petitioner bears the burden of showing that a state procedural rule is not adequate to bar federal review, see Stokes v. Anderson, 123 F.3d 858, 860 (5th Cir.1997), cert. denied,522 U.S. 1134, 118 S.Ct. 1091, 140 L.Ed.2d 147 (1998); that sufficient cause and prejudice exist to excuse the procedural default; or that imposition of the bar would result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice. See Edwards v. Carpenter, 529 U.S. 446, 451, 120 S.Ct. 1587, 1591, 146 L.Ed.2d 518 (2000); Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. at 750, 111 S.Ct. at 2565.

Respondent claims that petitioner's first, third, fourth and fifth claims are unexhausted and now procedurally barred by such default because Texas law precludes a successive state habeas claim. See Beazley v. Johnson, 242 F.3d 248, 264 (5th Cir.) (citing Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. at 735 n. 1, 111 S.Ct. at 2557 n. 1), cert. denied,534 U.S. 945, 122 S.Ct. 329, 151 L.Ed.2d 243 (2001).

In his first claim, Petitioner complains that his death sentence violates his Fifth Amendment right to due process, his Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment, and his Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection under the Constitution because he is not guilty of the offense of capital murder. (Pet. at 6-10.)

In his third claim, Petitioner contends that his rights to due process of law and to be free from cruel and unusual punishment guaranteed by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments were violated because of the impossibility of simultaneously restricting the jury's discretion to impose the death penalty while also allowing the jury unlimited discretion to consider all evidence militating against imposition of the death penalty under the Texas death-penalty scheme. (Pet. at 17-22.)

In his fourth claim, Petitioner alleges that his execution would violate his rights to due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and would constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment because of the inadequacy of Texas clemency procedures. (Pet. at 23-28.)

Similarly, in his fifth and final claim, Petitioner contends that his execution would violate an international treaty guaranteeing adequate clemency procedures. ( Id.) Respondent asserts that Petitioner has failed to present any of these claims to the highest state court and they are all, therefore, unexhausted. Further, that since Texas law would now prohibit such claims from being raised in a subsequent habeas-corpus writ application, that these claims are all barred from review by this court.

Petitioner acknowledges that he has not presented these claims to the state courts. (Pet. at 6, 17, 23.) Nevertheless, Petitioner does not establish that the state procedural law precluding subsequent writs is not adequate, nor does he provide either an excuse for his procedural default or a showing that a manifest injustice would result from this bar. See Beazley, 242 F.3d at 264; Stokes, 123 F.3d at 860; Edwards, 529 U.S. at 451, 120 S.Ct. at 1591. Therefore, Petitioner's first, third, fourth and fifth claims are denied as barred.

Standard of Review - The standard of review in federal habeas proceedings is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), which provides, in pertinent part: An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim - (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in a State court proceeding.

Since the petition in this case was filed after April 24, 1996, the above-cited provision of the AEDPA applies to those claims that were adjudicated on the merits. See Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 326-27, 117 S.Ct. 2059, 2063, 138 L.Ed.2d 481 (1997). “Resolution on the merits” in the habeas corpus context is a term of art that refers to the state court's disposition of the case on substantive rather than procedural grounds. Green v. Johnson, 116 F.3d 1115, 1121 (5th Cir.1997).

Section 2254(d)(1) concerns pure questions of law as well as mixed questions of law and fact. See Martin v. Cain, 246 F.3d 471, 475 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,534 U.S. 885, 122 S.Ct. 194, 151 L.Ed.2d 136 (2001). Under the “contrary to” clause, a federal habeas court may grant the writ of habeas corpus if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by the United States Supreme Court on a question of law or if the state court decides a case differently from the United States Supreme Court on a set of materially indistinguishable facts. Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412-3, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 1523, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000).

With respect to the “unreasonable application” clause, a federal court may grant a writ of habeas corpus if the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle from the United States Supreme Court's decisions, but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the prisoner's case. Id.

Under Williams, a state court unreasonably applies Supreme Court precedent if it “unreasonably extends a legal precedent from [Supreme Court] precedent to a new context where it should not apply or unreasonably refuses to extend that principle to a new context where it should apply.” Id.

Section 2254(d)(2) concerns questions of fact. See Moore v. Johnson, 225 F.3d 495, 501, 504 (5th Cir.2000), cert. denied,532 U.S. 949, 121 S.Ct. 1420, 149 L.Ed.2d 360 (2001). Under § 2254(d)(2), federal courts must give deference to state-court findings unless they were “based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding.” Chambers v. Johnson, 218 F.3d 360, 363 (5th Cir.) (as modified on denial of rehearing), cert. denied,531 U.S. 1002, 121 S.Ct. 508, 148 L.Ed.2d 473 (2000).

The resolution of factual issues by the state court is presumptively correct and will not be disturbed unless the prisoner rebuts the presumption by clear and convincing evidence. See28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1).

Assistance of Counsel - In his second claim for relief, Neville contends that his right to the effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments was violated when his trial counsel failed to properly examine potential jurors during the voir dire process. (Pet. at 10-17.) This claim lacks merit.

The Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant the right to the effective assistance of counsel. U.S. Const. Amend. VI. The two-pronged standard by which a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is measured is set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 698, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2070, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

The first prong of Strickland requires the defendant to show that counsel's performance was deficient. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. at 2064. To prove deficiency, a defendant “must show that counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.”466 U.S. at 687-88, 104 S.Ct. at 2064.

This requires a showing that the errors made by his counsel were so serious that such counsel was not functioning as the counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. See466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. at 2064.

This court must indulge a strong presumption that counsel's conduct fell within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance or sound trial strategy. See466 U.S. at 688-89, 104 S.Ct. at 2064-65. Judicial scrutiny of counsel's performance must be highly deferential and every effort must be made to eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight. See466 U.S. at 689, 104 S.Ct. 2065.

The second prong of this test requires the defendant to show prejudice by demonstrating that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's deficient performance, the result of the proceeding would have been different. See466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. at 2068.

A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. See466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. at 2068. The court need not address both prongs of the Strickland standard if the complainant has made an insufficient showing on one. See466 U.S. at 697, 104 S.Ct. at 2069.

Neville argues that the importance of expert testimony during the punishment phase regarding his medical condition and its effect on his behavior required his attorneys to examine the potential jurors on their views about this type of expert testimony, disease, and psychiatric evidence. (Pet. at 12-13.)

He then alleges that no juror's examination contained any meaningful exploration of the juror's views on these matters. This, he argues, left their defense in a vacuum caused by their lack of preparation, seriously undermining their defense. (Pet. at 16-17.) This claim fails both prongs of Strickland.

Regarding the deficiency prong, Petitioner has not shown that trial counsel's decision was anything other than reasonable trial strategy. The first mention of the theory that the murder was related to a disease (lupus) that may afflict Petitioner came from the last witness his attorneys called in the punishment stage.

This gave the prosecution little time to react, and their rebuttal witness was apparently not contacted until one hour before he testified. (46 St. Rep. Rec. at 197-98.) This strategy appears reasonably related to the doubtful nature of this defensive theory, and the ease in which the prosecution was able to overcome it.

However, even if Petitioner had satisfied the first prong, he has not shown any prejudice arising from counsel's decision. Petitioner does not claim that any bias against such testimony tainted the petit jury actually impaneled. See Clark v. Collins, 19 F.3d 959, 956 (5th Cir.1994).

Therefore, he has not shown “that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. at 1068; Moore v. Butler, 819 F.2d 517, 520 (5th Cir.1987). Since Petitioner has not satisfied either prong of Strickland, his second claim for relief must be denied.

Evidentiary Hearing - In connection with these claims, Neville requested an evidentiary hearing. When there is a factual dispute that, if resolved in the petitioner's favor, would entitle him to relief and the state has not afforded the petitioner a full and fair evidentiary hearing, a federal habeas-corpus petitioner is entitled to discovery and an evidentiary hearing. See Hughes v. Johnson, 191 F.3d 607 (5th Cir.1999); Goodwin v. Johnson, 132 F.3d 162, 178 (5th Cir.1997). The AEDPA raised the standard for obtaining relief on claims governed by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

Therefore, the allegations of the petition should now demonstrate that this higher standard for relief can be met before an evidentiary hearing will be warranted. Further, the AEDPA eliminated the requirement of a “full and fair hearing” in state court before according deference to state-court findings. Valdez, 274 F.3d at 948.FN2

Finally, the AEDPA expressly limits the availability of an evidentiary hearing when the habeas petitioner has failed to develop the factual basis of the claim in the state-court proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2). Each of these requirements imposes additional restrictions on the ability of federal courts to grant evidentiary hearings and relief in federal habeas-corpus proceedings.

FN2. While reaffirming the Goodwin standard for the initial grant of an evidentiary hearing, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Valdez held that “a full and fair hearing is not a prerequisite to the application of AEDPA's deferential framework.”274 F.3d at 948.

The instant case does not warrant an evidentiary hearing. The only claim reached on its merits clearly failed to allege facts which, even if true, would authorize relief. Therefore, the request for an evidentiary hearing is denied.

Order - Having concluded that Petitioner's first, third, fourth and fifth claims for relief should be denied as procedurally barred, and that Petitioner's second claim for relief should be denied on its merits, it is, therefore, ORDERED that each of Petitioner's claims for relief be and they are all hereby DENIED.

Robert James Neville