Filed: Aug. 20, 2020
Latest Update: Aug. 21, 2020
Summary: Case: 18-41150 Document: 00515535206 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/20/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED August 20, 2020 No. 18-41150 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Irving Magana Garcia, Petitioner—Appellant, versus Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent—Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:16-CV-632 Before
Summary: Case: 18-41150 Document: 00515535206 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/20/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED August 20, 2020 No. 18-41150 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Irving Magana Garcia, Petitioner—Appellant, versus Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent—Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:16-CV-632 Before S..
More
Case: 18-41150 Document: 00515535206 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/20/2020
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
August 20, 2020
No. 18-41150
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Irving Magana Garcia,
Petitioner—Appellant,
versus
Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of
Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division,
Respondent—Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:16-CV-632
Before Stewart, Clement, and Costa, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Irving Magana Garcia appeals the denial of his habeas petition. He is
a Mexican national who speaks only Spanish. But his attorney recommended
that he not use an English interpreter at his murder trial. At the time, Garcia
agreed with that advice, and his lawyer told the judge that Garcia did not need
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 18-41150 Document: 00515535206 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/20/2020
No. 18-41150
an interpreter throughout the trial (there was an interpreter when Garcia
testified). Garcia now argues that his agreement with his lawyer’s advice
could not waive the interpreter; he believes that the trial court needed to
obtain a waiver directly from the defendant. He also contends that counsel
was ineffective in recommending against an interpreter. Garcia’s first claim
fails on the merits, as the state court reasonably concluded there was a valid
waiver. And Garcia’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim is procedurally
barred. We therefore affirm.
I.
Garcia shot and killed Cristian De Los Santos Sanchez in McAllen,
Texas. Garcia admitted he was the shooter. The murder trial came down to
whether he acted in self-defense. Garcia testified that he shot Sanchez
because, after a heated conversation, Sanchez reached for “what appeared to
be a gun.” The jury rejected Garcia’s self-defense theory and convicted him.
But it found that sudden passion spurred the killing, which resulted in a
sentence of 20 years.
Most of the witnesses spoke English. Because his lawyer, Fernando
Mancias, rejected an interpreter, Garcia did not comprehend this testimony.
However, Mancias is bilingual and gave Garcia brief summaries of “harmful”
witness statements. Spanish-speaking witnesses—including Garcia—
testified about the key issue: Garcia’s state of mind.
After sentencing, Garcia retained different counsel and sought a new
trial. He argued that the judge’s failure to appoint an interpreter “denied his
rights to understand and confront his accusers and to assist in his own
defense.” Garcia also claimed that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing
to request an interpreter. After the motion was overruled without
explanation, Garcia appealed. The state court of appeals abated the appeal
and remanded for a hearing on the motion.
2
Case: 18-41150 Document: 00515535206 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/20/2020
No. 18-41150
At the hearing, Garcia conceded that Mancias had informed him of his
right to have an interpreter but had recommended he not request one. Garcia
further conceded that he agreed with Mancias’s recommendation but only
because Mancias had warned that an interpreter “would distract [Mancias]
and not let him concentrate very well.” Confirming Garcia’s account,
Mancias explained that he had advised against an interpreter; in his view,
having one “would be very distracting” for Mancias and the jury.
The prosecutor also testified. She remembered that during an off-the-
record bench conference, the trial judge “asked . . . Mancias, are you going
to want an interpreter? And he said no.”
The trial judge denied the new-trial motion, finding that:
• “Garcia was aware of his right to an interpreter and for valid reasons,
pertaining to trial strategy, did not request an interpreter.”
• “Garcia waived his right to an interpreter during an unrecorded bench
conference.”
• “Mancias[] provided effective assistan[ce] of counsel during a
difficult case.”
• “That counsel discussed . . . Garcia’s right to an interpreter and had
a valid trial strategy in recommending that they not seek the
appointment of an interpreter.”
With the motion resolved, the state appellate court reinstated Garcia’s
appeal and affirmed his conviction.
Garcia next petitioned the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals for
review, contending only that he did not waive an interpreter. 1 It affirmed in
1
Instead of specifically raising his ineffective-assistance claim, Garcia asked only
whether “the Court of Appeals err[ed] in overruling each issue raised on appeal about the
district court . . . denying [his] motion for [a] new trial.”
3
Case: 18-41150 Document: 00515535206 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/20/2020
No. 18-41150
a divided opinion. Garcia v. State, 429 S.W.3d 604 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
The majority concluded that Mancias told Garcia “that he had a right to an
interpreter,” that Garcia “agreed with counsel not to request an interpreter,
and that [Garcia] and counsel communicated their desire not to have an
interpreter to the trial judge.” 2
Id. at 609.
Garcia then sought state habeas relief, alleging ineffective assistance
of appellate, but not trial, counsel. After that application was denied, he filed
a second application, this time alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel
relating to the interpreter decision. The Court of Criminal Appeals
dismissed it as an abuse of the writ, meaning he should have pursued it
earlier.
Out of state options, Garcia went to federal court. He filed this habeas
action, asserting that Mancias was ineffective for recommending against an
interpreter and that the trial judge’s failure to appoint one resulted in several
constitutional violations. Concluding that Garcia “failed to demonstrate he
was prejudiced by [any] constitutional error,” the district court dismissed his
petition with prejudice. But the court also concluded that Garcia never
validly waived his right to an interpreter. He was therefore denied that right
and, consequently, “could not confront the evidence presented against him
or assist in his own defense.” In the district court’s view, reasonable jurists
could debate whether those deprivations amounted to “structural” error
requiring automatic reversal, so it issued a certificate of appealability and
appointed counsel for Garcia.
2
The opinion indicates that Garcia personally waived an interpreter in a colloquy
with the trial judge. Id. at 609. But the parties seem to agree (and the record supports) that
Garcia was not present when Mancias told the trial judge that an interpreter was not
needed, though Garcia had agreed with that position.
4
Case: 18-41150 Document: 00515535206 Page: 5 Date Filed: 08/20/2020
No. 18-41150
II.
A.
Garcia’s first claim is that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals erred
in determining that he waived an interpreter. Because the state court rejected
this claim on the merits, Garcia must show not just that it made a mistake—
three dissenting justices of the state court thought that was the case—but
that it unreasonably applied clearly established law “as determined by the
Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).
According to Garcia, waiver of an interpreter requires (1) a personal
waiver by the defendant (not just his counsel) that is (2) supervised by the
trial court. In other words, Garcia contends that waiving an interpreter
requires the same constitutional protections that apply to waiving counsel or
pleading guilty. See Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 465 (1938) (right to
counsel); Brookhart v. Janis,
384 U.S. 1, 7–8 (1966) (right to plead not guilty).
Other rights, however, often those involving “the conduct of the trial” such
as whether to object to evidence, may be waived by the attorney without “the
fully informed and publicly acknowledged consent” of the defendant. New
York v. Hill,
528 U.S. 110, 115 (2000) (quoting Taylor v. Illinois,
484 U.S. 400,
418 (1988)).
Garcia argues that the right to an interpreter, which he frames as a
corollary of the right to be present at trial, is the kind that must be personally
waived by the defendant. The problem is that the Supreme Court has never
said that (in fact, it has never discussed a constitutional right to an interpreter
in any context). He correctly points out that unlike the “contrary to”
standard of section 2254(d), the “unreasonable application of” standard
does not require a Supreme Court decision directly on point. Panetti v.
Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930, 953 (2007) (explaining that section 2254(d)(1)
does not require an “identical factual pattern before a legal rule must be
5
Case: 18-41150 Document: 00515535206 Page: 6 Date Filed: 08/20/2020
No. 18-41150
applied” (quoting Carey v. Musladin, 549 U.S. 70, 81 (2006) (Kennedy, J.,
concurring))); Lockyer v. Andrade,
538 U.S. 63, 76 (2003) (acknowledging
that section 2254(d)(1) “permits a federal court to grant habeas relief based
on the application of a governing legal principle to a set of facts different from
those of the case in which the principle was announced”).
But while habeas relief is available when a rule previously established
by the Supreme Court is unreasonably applied to new facts, it is not available
when a state court declines to extend a legal principle. White v. Woodall, 572
U.S. 415, 426 (2014). As the Supreme Court has recognized, the line
between application and extension of its precedent “is not always clear.”
Id.
at 427 (quoting Yarborough v. Alvarado,
541 U.S. 652, 666 (2004)). Even so,
we readily conclude that this falls on the extension side. The constitutional
requirements for waiver of an interpreter are uncharted territory. It is not
just that the Supreme Court has not adopted Garcia’s view that there needs
to be a personal, judge-supervised waiver; he fails to identify a single court
that has. 3 Because no clearly established federal law addresses the
constitutional procedures for waiving an interpreter, the state court did not
unreasonably apply Supreme Court precedent in concluding it was enough
that Garcia consented to the waiver his lawyer communicated. See Wright v.
Van Patten,
552 U.S. 120, 126 (2008) (per curiam) (“Because our cases give
no clear answer to the question presented, let alone one in Van Patten’s favor,
3
Federal prosecutions would be unlikely to address the constitutional dimensions
of the interpreter issue because a federal statute addresses the issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 1827.
The statute does require a personal waiver from the defendant once the court determines,
or the defendant points out, that English is not his primary language. Id. § 1827(d), (f)(1);
see also generally United States v. Tapia,
631 F.2d 1207 (5th Cir. 1980) (applying section
1827).
6
Case: 18-41150 Document: 00515535206 Page: 7 Date Filed: 08/20/2020
No. 18-41150
it cannot be said that the state court ‘unreasonabl[y] appli[ed]’ clearly
established Federal law.” (alterations in original) (quotations omitted)). 4
B.
Even when counsel can waive a right and has done so, that decision—
like others a lawyer makes in a criminal case—must meet the constitutional
standard for effective representation. See Hill, 528 U.S. at 115 (noting, when
discussing a right that counsel could waive, that “[a]bsent a demonstration
of ineffectiveness, counsel’s word on such matters is the last”). Garcia’s
second claim is that Mancias’s recommendation to waive the interpreter
deprived him of this Sixth Amendment right to effective representation.
This claim runs into a common pitfall of federal habeas law:
procedural default. When an adequate and independent state procedural rule
barred the federal constitutional claim in state court, the claim cannot be the
basis for federal habeas relief. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750 (1991).
Although Garcia developed a trial court record for his ineffective-assistance
claim before his direct appeal, he did not assert the claim in the Court of
Criminal Appeals.
Garcia, 429 S.W.3d at 606 n.3 (observing that Garcia’s
ineffective-assistance claim “is not before us”). That means Garcia did not
exhaust the claim on direct appeal. See Beazley v. Johnson,
242 F.3d 248, 263
(5th Cir. 2001) (citing Deters v. Collins,
985 F.2d 789, 795 (5th Cir. 1993)).
Nor did he raise the claim in his first state habeas application. When he did
raise ineffectiveness in his second habeas petition, the Court of Criminal
4 We thus need not reach the question the district court grappled with: whether
the failure to provide an interpreter is structural error as opposed to the more common type
that is subject to harmless-error review. We note, however, that harmless-error analysis
generally applies even to the “fundamental right[]” to be present at trial, which Garcia
identifies as the source of the interpreter right. Rushen v. Spain, 464 U.S. 114, 117–18 & n.2
(1983) (per curiam).
7
Case: 18-41150 Document: 00515535206 Page: 8 Date Filed: 08/20/2020
No. 18-41150
Appeals dismissed it under its abuse-of-the-writ rule, which prevents
successive habeas claims when the factual basis for the claim was previously
available. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 4(a)–(c); Ford v.
Davis, 910 F.3d 232, 234 (5th Cir. 2018) (“Texas law prohibits its courts from
considering a successive habeas petition unless the factual basis of the claim
was unascertainable through the exercise of reasonable diligence before the
filing of the first application.”).
Garcia can overcome this procedural bar only if he “demonstrate[s]
cause for the default and actual prejudice as a result of” Mancias’s allegedly
deficient performance. Coleman, 501 U.S. at 750. Garcia suggests that he can
show cause under Martinez v. Ryan,
566 U.S. 1 (2012), and Trevino v. Thaler,
569 U.S. 413 (2013), arguing that his pro se status in his first habeas
application excuses his failure to raise the ineffectiveness claim then. But
while it is “virtually impossible” in Texas to raise claims of ineffective trial
counsel on direct appeal, this case requires the “virtually” qualification.
Trevino, 569 U.S. at 417, 423. Garcia had new counsel for his direct appeal.
That eliminated the conflict that often prevents the raising of a Strickland
claim on direct appeal. See
Martinez, 566 U.S. at 11–12. Garcia and his new
counsel also managed to overcome another typical obstacle to direct review
of ineffective-assistance claims: the trial court developed a full evidentiary
record that allowed the claim challenging trial counsel’s performance to be
pursued on direct appeal (as it was in the intermediate appellate court). See
Trevino, 569 U.S. at 425–26. Because this was the unusual case in which state
habeas was not “the ‘initial’ review proceeding in respect to the ‘ineffective-
assistance-of-trial-counsel claim,’” Trevino does not apply.
Id. at 423
(announcing a rule that applies only when, among other things, “the state
collateral review proceeding was the ‘initial’ review proceeding” for the
claim alleging ineffective assistance at trial).
8
Case: 18-41150 Document: 00515535206 Page: 9 Date Filed: 08/20/2020
No. 18-41150
Long before Martinez and Trevino, ineffective assistance of counsel on
direct appeal could excuse a procedural default, see Coleman, 501 U.S. at 753–
54, but Garcia does not allege that here. Nothing in the record indicates why
Garcia chose not to pursue all the way to the Court of Criminal Appeals his
claim challenging the advice counsel gave him to waive the interpreter. As a
result, he has not demonstrated cause to overcome the procedural default of
his ineffective-assistance claim.
***
The judgment is AFFIRMED.
9
