Williams v. Dretke
Filing
217
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 215 Opposed MOTION to Alter Judgment,denying 216 Opposed MOTION to Stay Execution. A Certificate of Appealability is granted. (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified. (aboyd)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
JEFFREY DEMOND WILLIAMS,
§
§
§
Petitioner,
5
5
v.
§
RICK THALER, Director,
Texas Department of Criminal
Justice, Correctional
Institutions Division,
Respondent.
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-04-2945
§
§
§
§
§
§
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Jeffrey Demond Williams is a Texas death row inmate.
He has
filed motions for relief from judgment and for a stay of execution.
For the following reasons, Williams' motions will be denied.
I.
Backqround
Williams was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to
death for murdering a police officer.
Appeals
("TCCA") affirmed
Williamsf
The Texas Court of Criminal
conviction
and
sentence,
Williams v. State, No. 73,796 (Tex. Crim. App. May 8, 2002), and
denied
his
application
Williams, No. 50,662-01
for post-conviction
relief,
Ex
parte
(Tex. Crim. App. April 2, 2003).
On
June 17, 2003, Williams filed a successive state habeas application
arguing that the Eighth Amendment barred his execution because he
is mentally retarded, and that his sentence violated the Sixth
Amendment because the jury did not make a determination on his
mental retardation claim.
The TCCA found that Williams failed to
make a prima facie showing of mental retardation and dismissed the
application
as
an
abuse
of
the
writ.
No. 50,662-02 (Tex. Crim. App. Oct. 8, 2003).
Ex
parte
Williams,
Williams filed his
federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus on July 20, 2004, and
amended the petition on September 1, 2004.
On July 15, 2005, this court denied all of the claims raised
in Williams' amended petition except his claim that he was legally
ineligible for the death penalty because he is mentally retarded.
The court conducted a seven-day evidentiary hearing on that claim,
and denied relief on February 14, 2007. Williams filed a motion to
alter or amend the judgment, which this court denied on April 4,
2007.
He then filed a motion for relief from the judgment, which
was denied on May 10, 2007.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed this
court' s judgment on September 19, 2008, and denied a certificate of
appealability on his post-judgment motions on March 30, 2010.
The
Supreme Court of the United States denied Williams' petition for a
writ of certiorari on November 1, 2010.
On April 25, 2013, Williams filed this motion for relief from
the judgment of this court under Rule 60 (b)(6) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. Williams seeks relief from that portion of the
judgment, and from the denial of his motion to alter or amend the
judgment, denying relief on his claim that his trial counsel
rendered ineffective assistance by
failing to investigate and
present mitigating evidence. That claim was denied as procedurally
defaulted because Williams failed to present the claim in his state
habeas corpus application.
Williams also filed a motion to stay
his execution, which is scheduled for May 15, 2013.
11.
Analvsis
Rule 60(b) (6) provides that a court may grant relief from a
judgment for any reason that justifies relief.
Williams argues
that the Supreme Courtfs decision in Martinez v. Rvan, 132 S.Ct.
1309 (2012), justifies relief in this case.
In Martinez the Court held that ineffective assistance of
state habeas counsel can constitute cause for a procedural default
of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim when state law
requires
that
such
a
collateral proceeding.
claim
be
raised
in
an
initial-review
I . at 1315. The Fifth Circuit, however,
d
has held that the Martinez rule is not applicable in Texas because
Texas does not require that ineffective assistance of counsel
claims be raised in a state habeas corpus application.
The TCCA made clear that a state habeas petition is the
preferred vehicle for developing ineffectiveness claims.
Robinson v. State, 16 S.W.3d 808, 809-10 (Tex. Crim. App.
2000). Yet Texas defendants may first raise ineffectiveness claims before the trial court following conviction
via a motion for new trial, when practicable, and the
trial court abuses its discretion by failing to hold a
hearing on an ineffectiveness claim predicated on matters
not determinable from the record. Holden v. State, 201
S.W.3d 761, 762-63 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). A prisoner
who develops such a record through a new trial motion can
of course pursue the denial of an ineffectiveness claim
through direct appeal, but the TCCA has indicated that a
new trial motion is neither a sufficient nor necessary
condition to secure review of an ineffectiveness claim on
direct appeal. Indeed, an ineffectiveness claim may
simply be raised on direct appeal without the benefit of
a motion for new trial. Robinson, 16 S.W.3d at 813. As
a result, both Texas intermediate courts and the TCCA
sometimes reach the merits of ineffectiveness claims on
direct appeal. Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808, 813-14
(Tex. Crim. App. 1999). Where they do not, Texas habeas
procedures remain open to convicted defendants. Ex parte
Nailor, 149 S.W.3d 125, 129, 131 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004).
In short, Texas procedures do not mandate that
ineffectiveness claims be heard in the first instance in
habeas proceedings, and they do not by law deprive Texas
defendants of counsel-and court-driven guidance in
pursuing ineffectiveness claims.
Ibarra v. Thaler, 687 F.3d 222, 227 (5th Cir. 2012).
The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in a case raising the
question of whether Martinez applies in Texas.
See Trevino v.
Thaler, 133 S.Ct. 524 (2012). The Supreme Court, however, has not
issued an opinion on the merits that is contrary to Ibarra.
Therefore, Ibarra is the controlling law in this circuit, and this
court is bound by that decision.
Under Ibarra, Williams is not
entitled to relief from the judgment.
Because Williams fails to
demonstrate any justification for relief from the judgment, there
is no basis on which to stay his execution.
111.
C e r t i f i c a t e of A p p e a l a b i l i t v
A petitioner may obtain a certificate of appealability ("COA")
either from the district court or an appellate court, but an
appellate court will not consider a petitioner's request for a COA
until the district court has denied such a request.
See Whitehead
v. Johnson, 157 F.3d 384, 388 (5th Cir. 1988); see also Hill v.
Johnson, 114 F.3d 78, 82 (5th Cir. 1997) ("[Tlhe district court
should continue to review COA requests before the court of appeals
does.").
A COA may issue only if the petitioner has made a
"substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right."
U.S.C.
§
429, 431
28
2253 (c)(2); see also United States v. Kimler, 150 F.3d
(5th Cir. 1998).
A petitioner "makes a substantial
showing when he demonstrates that his application involves issues
that are debatable among jurists of reason, that another court
could resolve the issues differently, or that the issues are
suitable enough to deserve encouragement to proceed further."
Hernandez v. Johnson, 213 F.3d 243, 248 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,
531 U.S. 966 (2000). The Supreme Court has stated that
When the district court denies a habeas petition on
procedural grounds without reaching the prisoner's
underlying constitutional claim, a COA should issue when
the prisoner shows, at least, that jurists of reason
would find it debatable whether the petition states a
valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and
that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether
the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
The fact that the Supreme Court granted certiorari in a case
raising the same issue as this case demonstrates that jurists of
reason could find it debatable whether this court is correct in its
procedural ruling.
GRANTED.
Therefore, Williamsf request for a COA is
IV.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Williams' Motion for Relief From
Judgment Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6)
(Docket Entry No. 215) and Motion for Stay of May
Execution (Docket Entry No. 216) are DENIED.
15, 2013,
A certificate of
appealability is GRANTED.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 30th day of April, 2013.
1
SIM LAKE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?