Butler v. Stephens

Filing 83

ORDER denying 80 Opposed MOTION to Vacate Final Judgment. No COA shall issue. (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified.(gclair, 4)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION

STEVEN ANTHONY BUTLER,

January 23, 2018
David J. Bradley, Clerk

§
§

Petitioner/Defendant,

v.
LORIE DAVIS, Director,
Texas Department of Criminal
Justice, Correctional
Institutions Division,
Respondent/Plaintiff.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. H-07-2103

ORDER DENYING
PETITIONER'S MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT

Petitioner, Steven Anthony Butler, currently in the custody of
the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, was convicted of capital
murder and sentenced to death for the murder of Velma Clemons
during a robbery.

The court denied Butler's Amended Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus (Docket Entry No. 9) and subsequently denied
Petitioner's Motion to Vacate Judgment

(Docket

Entry No.

31) .

Among the claims raised and rejected in Butler's Amended Petition
was

a

claim

that

assistance by

failing

health history.
information

Butler's

about

to

trial

investigate

Butler argues
his

counsel

life

that

history

rendered

Butler's
counsel
to

life

ineffective
and mental

should have

have

Butler

used

declared

incompetent to stand trial and as mitigating evidence during the
penalty phase of Butler's trial.

The court declined to address

that claim because it was procedurally defaulted.

After the court issued its decision, the Supreme Court decided
Martinez v.

Ryan,

132 S.

Ct.

1309,

1318-19

(2012)

The Fifth

Circuit subsequently remanded this case for review of Butler's
ineffective assistance of counsel claim in light of Martinez.

This

court reviewed the remanded claim under the standards set out in
Martinez and again denied relief.
Docket Entry No.

7 8)

(Memorandum Opinion and Order,

Butler then moved to alter or amend the

judgment under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
(Petitioner's Motion to Vacate Judgment, Docket Entry No. 80)
A motion to alter or amend under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) "must
clearly establish either a manifest error of law or fact or must
present

newly

discovered

evidence."

Schiller

Resource Group Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 567
quotation

marks

appropriate

omitted) .

when

there

controlling law."

Id.

has

"Relief
been an

v.

Physicians

(5th Cir. 2003)

under

Rule

(internal

59 (e)

is

intervening change

in

also
the

Butler fails to demonstrate grounds for

relief.
Butler cites no new evidence or change in controlling law.
Instead,
court,

Butler largely rehashes

and does

the

so in the context of

committed manifest error of law by:

argument

rejected by the

claiming that

the court

(1) "den [ying] relief based on

its view that Mr. Butler's mental health history was irrelevant to
a determination of trial competence . . . . ";and (2) "rel[ying] on
the principle that 'counsel is entitled to rely on the opinions of
qualified

experts'

"

(Petitioner's
-2-

Motion

to

Vacate

Judgment, Docket Entry No.

80, pp.

2-3,

8)

Butler fundamentally

mischaracterizes the court's opinion.
Nowhere in the Memorandum Opinion and Order denying relief did
the court say, suggest, or imply that "Mr. Butler's mental health
history was irrelevant to a determination of trial competence."
Instead,

the

authority
Butler

court

stated

citing

relevant

Supreme

Court

that the controlling question in determining whether

was

competent

to

stand

trial

was

whether

Butler

had

"(1) sufficient present (at the time of trial) ability to consult
with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding;
and

( 2)

a

rational

as

well

proceedings against him."

as

factual

understanding

of

(Memorandum Opinion and Order,

the

Docket

Entry No. 78, pp. 5-6 (citing Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389, 396
( 1993)))

The

court

further

stated that

"[c] ompetency and

presence of mental illness are not co-extensive.

the

A defendant can

be both mentally ill and competent to stand trial."

Id.

at 6.

Thus, while a defendant's mental health history may be relevant to
a

determination of

defendant's

competency,

the controlling question is

present ability to

understand the proceedings.

consult

with his

As the court noted,

the

lawyer and

to

two contempora-

neous evaluations concluded that Butler was competent.

Because

Butler's

court's

analysis,

argument
he

fails

depends
to

on

mischaracterizing

demonstrate

analysis.

-3-

any

error

of

the
law

in

that

Butler argues that the court erred in denying his claim that
counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate Butler's mental
health history.

The court concluded that counsel was entitled to

rely on the experts' conclusions.

Id. at 6-7.

Butler now argues

that this conclusion was erroneous because the experts were not
aware of Butler's mental health history.

This argument ignores the

context of the court's conclusion.
The court -- again citing controlling authority -- noted the
standard governing failure to investigate claims:
"[S]trategic choices made after less than complete
investigation are reasonable precisely to the extent that
reasonable professional judgments support the limitations
on investigation." Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 521
(2003) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted)
(quoting Strickland [v. Washington], 466 U.S. [668,] at
690-91 [(1984)]).
When assessing the reasonableness of
an attorney's investigation, a court must "consider not
only the quantum of evidence already known to counsel,
but also whether the known evidence would lead a
reasonable attorney to investigate further." Id. at 527.
Id. at 7.
not

to

In concluding that counsel was reasonable in deciding

investigate

further,

relevant case law --

that

the

court

stated

again citing

"counsel is entitled to rely on the

opinions of qualified experts."

Id. at 6-7.

The court found that

two qualified experts concluded that Butler was competent, and that
counsel, who was not himself a mental health expert,

reasonably

relied on those two expert opinions in deciding not to investigate
further.

That analysis is a correct statement and application of

controlling law.

-4-

With regard to Butler's claim that failure to develop his
mental health history was damaging to his mitgation case, the court
found that he failed to satisfy the prejudice prong of Strickland
v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).

Id. at 8-10.

Butler does not

now identify a manifest error of law, but instead merely expresses
his disagreement with the court's application of the controlling
law to the particular facts of this case.

See Petitioner's Motion

to Vacate Judgment, Docket Entry No. 80, p. 9.
ment with the

court's

conclusion does

relief under Rule 59(e).

Moreover,

Butler's disagree-

not provide grounds

for

because the court's finding

that Butler has not demonstrated manifest error is not debatable
among jurists of reason, Butler is not entitled to a certificate of
appealability from this Order.
243, 248 (5th Cir. 2000).
IT IS ORDERED that

See Hernandez v. Johnson, 213 F.3d

Accordingly,
Petitioner's Motion to Vacate Judgment

(Docket Entry No. 80) is DENIED; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability

shall issue.
SO ORDERED.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 23rd day of January, 2018.

LAKE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-5-