Filed: Jun. 02, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: REVISED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 94-20839 JESSEL TURNER, Petitioner-Appellant, versus GARY JOHNSON, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas February 19, 1997 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, GARWOOD and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges. POLITZ, Chief Judge: Jessel Turner, a Texas death row inmate, seeks additional counsel, a stay of execution, and an
Summary: REVISED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 94-20839 JESSEL TURNER, Petitioner-Appellant, versus GARY JOHNSON, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas February 19, 1997 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, GARWOOD and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges. POLITZ, Chief Judge: Jessel Turner, a Texas death row inmate, seeks additional counsel, a stay of execution, and an ..
More
REVISED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 94-20839
JESSEL TURNER,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
GARY JOHNSON, Director, Texas Department
of Criminal Justice, Institutional
Division,
Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
February 19, 1997
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, GARWOOD and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.
POLITZ, Chief Judge:
Jessel Turner, a Texas death row inmate, seeks additional
counsel, a stay of execution, and an evidentiary hearing on this,
his first petition for federal habeas corpus relief. Finding
Turner represented by very competent counsel and that he has
received a full and fair hearing in state court, we deny that
relief. In addition, because petitioner has not made a substantial
showing of the denial of a federal right, we deny the requested
Certificate of Probable Cause to appeal the district court’s denial
of a writ of habeas corpus as well as the successor Certificate of
Appealability.
BACKGROUND
Near midnight on February 10, 1986, Jessel Turner walked up to
a gas station in Houston, Texas and sought a ride from Archie
Holmes, the driver of a cab parked there. Holmes was off duty but
he asked his dispatcher to send out another cab for Turner. Turner
spoke with Tracy McGrew, an employee of the station, as he waited
for the cab. In a few minutes a cab driven by Charles Hunter
picked up Turner and departed. A short time later Jimmy Darks,
another cab driver, found Hunter lying in the road a few hundred
yards from the station. He had been shot to death; his cab was
gone.
Meanwhile, Turner had returned to the station driving a
Chevrolet Impala. Shortly after Turner left, Houston police
officers, alerted about the homicide and informed of Hunter’s last
dispatch, arrived at the gas station. As they were interviewing
McGrew, who was giving them a description of Turner and his
vehicle, Turner drove by. The police gave pursuit and, after a
brief car chase, stopped Turner and placed him under arrest.
Turner was taken to a police station and placed in a line-up.
McGrew identified Turner as the man who had entered Hunter’s cab at
the gas station a few minutes before Hunter’s death. Archie
Holmes, while unable to identify Turner positively as Hunter’s last
cab fare, advised of a similarity in appearance.
2
Around 8:00 a.m., while in police custody, Turner signed a
written statement claiming that he had not been involved in
Hunter’s death. Several hours later he signed a second statement
asserting that Hunter had threatened him with a pistol and that the
fatal wound had been inflicted as the two men struggled for control
of the gun. In a third statement, made at 2:40 p.m. that day,
Turner admitted that the murder weapon was his but he stated that
Hunter was killed when the weapon accidentally discharged.
Finally, Turner gave a fourth written statement in which he
confessed to robbing and kidnapping two women on the night of
Hunter’s murder.
Hunter’s cab was found at Turner’s apartment complex; a
fingerprint from Turner’s left ring finger was recovered from the
outside of the front passenger door. A .22 caliber pistol was
found under the front seat of the Impala Turner was driving when he
was arrested. Ballistics tests confirmed that this weapon fired
the shot which killed Hunter.
On April 13, 1987, Turner went on trial for capital murder
while in the course of committing and attempting to commit a
robbery, in violation of Section 19.03(a)(2) of the Texas Penal
Code. Turner’s motions to suppress the pretrial identifications
and his statements to the police were denied. At the guilt phase
Holmes and McGrew identified Turner as the man who had entered
Hunter’s cab shortly before his murder. The state also presented
redacted versions of Turner’s four statements, forensic evidence
3
tying him to the crime,1."Single action” is the relevant mechanism
when the pistol has been cocked, while “double action” describes
the mechanism used to fire a round when it is uncocked. The pistol
in question, a Saturday Night Special, has no safety. Given the
significant pull needed to depress the trigger and fire a round
when the weapon was uncocked, i.e. “double action,” the expert
testimony cast extreme doubt upon the proposition that the weapon
was accidentally discharged.2 and additional evidence of two
extraneous armed robberies committed by Turner.
On April 23, 1987, the jury found Turner guilty of capital
murder and the trial advanced into the punishment phase. The state
presented significant other crimes evidence, including excerpts
from Turner’s four written statements. The only mitigating
evidence Turner presented was testimony by two Harris County
jailers that he was not a troublemaker and had helped restore order
in the jail on several occasions. On April 27, 1987, the jury
returned a unanimous affirmative response to the death penalty
1
The state presented expert testimony to demonstrate that
Turner had possessed the requisite intent to kill Hunter. C.E.
Anderson, a firearms examiner with the Houston police department,
testified that the trigger pull on the murder weapon was eight
pounds on single action and nineteen pounds on double action,
and opined that
the act of firing the weapon “would have to be very intentional and
pressure would have to be exerted to pull this trigger.” Dr.
Harminder S. Narula, the Harris County assistant medical examiner,
testified that the absence of soot or gunpowder stippling on
Hunter’s body meant that the fatal bullet had been fired from “at
least 24 inches away.” Further expert testimony by a police
department chemist related that no gunpowder or stippling had been
found on Hunter’s shirt and that therefore the shot that killed
Hunter was fired from a distance of three to five feet away.
4
special issues and Turner was sentenced to death. His conviction
and sentence were subsequently affirmed on direct appeal and the
Supreme Court denied certiorari.3
On June 11, 1992, Turner sought a state writ of habeas corpus.
On June 29, 1994, after an evidentiary hearing, the trial court
entered factual findings and legal conclusions, recommending that
relief be denied; the Court of Criminal Appeals denied relief on
the basis of the trial court’s findings.4 Turner filed a second
application on October 3, 1994, and a second evidentiary hearing
was held on October 10, 1994. On November 2, 1994, the trial court
again recommended that relief be denied and the Court of Criminal
Appeals adopted that recommendation.5
Turner then filed the instant petition for federal habeas
corpus relief, followed shortly thereafter by motions for a stay of
execution and an evidentiary hearing. The state answered, filing
a motion for summary judgment and a response to the request for a
stay. The day before the scheduled execution the district court
denied Turner’s petition and declined to issue a Certificate of
Probable Cause for appeal. Turner filed a notice of appeal,
requested a CPC,6 and sought and secured from this court a stay of
3
Turner v. State, 805 S.W.2d 423 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert.
denied,
502 U.S. 870 (1991).
4
Ex Parte Turner, No. 26,853-01 (Tex.Crim.App. Sept. 7, 1994).
5
Ex Parte Turner, No. 26,853-02 (Tex.Crim.App. Nov. 3, 1994).
6
This case was briefed, argued and submitted for decision
before April 24, 1996, the effective date of the AEDPA. Brown v.
Cain, 104 F.3d 744 (5th Cir. 1997). If applicable, the standards
contained therein would not change today’s decision.
5
execution in order that we might appropriately review the matter.7
ANALYSIS
Turner first contends that the Supreme Court’s recent decision
in McFarland v. Scott8 entitles him to the appointment of counsel
and a stay order. Turner reads McFarland too expansively. The
McFarland Court was concerned only with that period of time between
the habeas petitioner’s motion for the appointment of counsel and
the filing of the initial petition. The Court reasoned that to
preclude the issuance of a stay until a petition was filed would,
as a practical matter, force the hasty and perhaps careless
preparation and submission of a habeas petition merely to invoke
the district court’s power to enter a stay, a result inconsistent
with section 848(q)(4)’s goal of providing effective legal
representation for indigent capital defendants. Where, as here, a
comprehensive petition has been filed, the mandate of McFarland has
no application.9 Turner has not established any “substantial
7
Although this case is only before us on consideration of the
application for a CPC, we have heard full oral argument from the
parties to assist in today’s disposition.
8
512 U.S. 849,
114 S. Ct. 2568,
129 L. Ed. 2d 666 (1994).
9
Turner’s section 848(q)(4) entitlement to the assistance of
competent counsel in pursuing federal postconviction relief is not
at issue because Turner has been very ably represented by counsel
for many years, a period including the direct appeal in state court
and the subsequent state postconviction proceedings. “There is no
indication in the [McFarland] opinion that the Court’s reading of
the statute applies to the case of a well-counseled prisoner whose
counsel, for technically admirable, though dilatory, reasons,
wishes to obtain both the security of a stay of execution from a
federal court while simultaneously reserving, rather than
exercising and thus exhausting, his right to federal court review
by petitioning for a writ of habeas corpus.” Steffen v. Tate, 39
F.3d 622, 625 (6th Cir. 1994).
6
grounds upon which relief might be granted”10 and we perceive no
error in the district court’s ruling.
Turner next claims that despite the two postconviction
evidentiary hearings in state court, he is entitled to an
evidentiary hearing in federal court. “A federal habeas court must
allow discovery and an evidentiary hearing only where a factual
dispute, 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.”11 If the petitioner has been afforded
a full and fair hearing in state court he may still claim an
evidentiary hearing in federal court if he can show cause and
prejudice for his failure to develop the desired facts in state
court, or if the failure to hold such a hearing would result in a
miscarriage of justice.12
Turner, focusing upon the relatively short period between the
filing of his second state habeas application and the evidentiary
hearing thereon, complains that he was denied a full and fair
hearing in state court because he was not allowed sufficient time
to develop certain forensic evidence.13 Turner’s assertions,
10
Drew v. Scott, 28 F.3d 460, 462 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,
U.S. , 115 S. Ct. 5,
129 L. Ed. 2d 906 (1994), (quoting Delo v.
Stokes,
495 U.S. 320, 321,
110 S. Ct. 1880, 1881,
109 L. Ed. 2d 325
(1990)).
11
Ward v. Whitley, 21 F.3d 1355, 1367 (5th Cir. 1994), cert.
denied, U.S. ,
115 S. Ct. 1257,
131 L. Ed. 2d 137 (1995).
12
Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1,
112 S. Ct. 1715,
118
L. Ed. 2d 318 (1992).
13
Turner suggests that if he were given sufficient time to
gather and present unspecified forensic evidence he will be able to
7
however plausible, are nonresponsive to the essential question
whether he received a full and fair hearing in state court. In
determining whether a state hearing was full and fair, we do not
consider only the nature of the evidence which might have been
adduced but, rather, inquire whether any procedural or substantive
barriers precluded a fair presentation of that evidence during the
state proceeding.14
We previously have found the procedures governing Texas habeas
corpus evidentiary hearings to be sufficient to produce a full and
fair hearing.15 The October 1994 evidentiary hearing was held
specifically to address the claims of ineffective assistance of
counsel raised in Turner’s second state petition. At that hearing,
Turner was represented by counsel familiar with the case and was
afforded the opportunity to subpoena and question witnesses, submit
exhibits and affidavits, cross-examine state witnesses, and
generally to be heard. He received a full-blown evidentiary
cast doubt upon the State’s medical and ballistics evidence which
indicated that Turner intended to kill Hunter. This, in turn,
would bolster his contention that trial counsel were ineffective in
choosing a defense based upon the theory that Turner lacked the
requisite intent to rob, rather than to kill, Hunter. We are
impressed by the intensity of habeas counsels’ efforts but are
unpersuaded.
14
See Barnard v. Collins, 13 F.3d 871, 877 (5th Cir.), cert.
denied,
510 U.S. 1102,
114 S. Ct. 946,
127 L. Ed. 2d 363 (1994)(“an
unexpected outcome does not automatically render the state
procedure unfair - especially when Barnard was afforded a full-
blown evidentiary hearing”).
15
Andrews v. Collins, 21 F.3d 612 (5th Cir. 1994), cert.
denied,
115 S. Ct. 908 (1995).
8
hearing.16 Testimony from both of Turner’s trial counsel were
developed at that hearing and additional affidavits were entered
into the record.
The record, and the opinions of the courts which have dealt
with this case, make clear that the ballistics and medical
testimony Turner challenges has been a matter of record since
Turner’s trial in 1987. Turner has not alleged that the weakness
or inadequacy which he perceives in this evidence was not
previously known to him; thus, his contention that he had
inadequate time to prepare forensic rebuttal evidence for either
state evidentiary hearing simply is not persuasive. Further, the
record of the second evidentiary hearing reflects no request for a
continuance so that such experts might be recruited. Unless state
adjudicatory officials or procedures somehow impeded Turner’s
ability to submit exhibits and to subpoena and fully question
expert witnesses under oath, which the record before us belies,
Turner’s failure to present this evidence in the state hearing in
no way discredits the full and fair nature of that hearing.17
16
Id. at 619 (full and fair hearing when defendant was allowed
“to present evidence and witnesses, to fully cross-examine
witnesses called by the state, and, after the hearing’s conclusion,
to submit affidavits”); Jernigan v. Collins,
980 F.2d 292, 297 (5th
Cir.) (defendant had a full and fair hearing when he was a party to
the proceeding, was represented by counsel, and afforded every
opportunity to be heard), cert. denied,
508 U.S. 978 (1993).
17
Turner’s right under 21 U.S.C. § 848(q)(9) to the assistance
of experts where reasonably necessary to press his habeas claims
does not entitle him to a federal evidentiary hearing when he has
failed to comply with his duty under Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes to
develop his evidence in state court. Fearance v. Scott, 56 F.3d
633 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, U.S. ,
115 S. Ct. 2603,
132
L. Ed. 2d 847 (1995).
9
Insofar as Turner is unable to show that the state evidentiary
hearings were anything other than full and fair, we must determine
whether cause and prejudice exist for Turner’s failure to present
the proffered evidence, or whether a miscarriage of justice would
result from the absence of a federal hearing. Neither Turner nor
the record suggest that “‘some objective factor external to the
defense impeded counsel’s efforts’ to develop the evidence;”18 thus,
Turner has not shown cause for his failure to develop the evidence
adequately in state court. Similarly, Turner “cannot show that the
absence of a federal evidentiary hearing has resulted in a
fundamental miscarriage of justice.”19 Based upon these findings,
we conclude that Turner’s demand for an evidentiary hearing lacks
merit.
Turner next maintains that the district court’s dismissal of
his lawsuit was improper because he did not receive ten days notice
of the court’s action as provided by Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c) which
details the procedure for obtaining summary judgment. Turner
contends that under Fed.R.Civ.P. 81(a)(2)20 and Habeas Rule 1121 the
18
Jernigan at 297 (quoting McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467,
493,
111 S. Ct. 1454, 1470,
113 L. Ed. 2d 517 (1991)).
19
Id. For this exception to apply, Turner “would have to
demonstrate ‘by clear and convincing evidence that but for a
constitutional error, no reasonable juror would have found [him]
eligible for the death penalty.’”
Id. (quoting Sawyer v. Whitley,
505 U.S. 333, 335,
112 S. Ct. 2514, 2517,
120 L. Ed. 2d 269 (1992)).
Turner’s showing, which we conclude does not demonstrate probable
cause for an appeal, falls far short of this exacting standard.
20
"These rules are applicable to proceedings for admission to
citizenship, habeas corpus, and quo warranto, to the extent that
the practice in such proceedings is not set forth in statutes of
the United States and has heretofore conformed to the practice in
10
notice requirement of Rule 56(c) applied. Turner further claims
that he was prejudiced by the lack of notice because he had
insufficient time to respond to the state’s copious 112-page motion
for summary judgment, which Turner contends was filled with errors
and misrepresentations.
Turner’s case was dismissed under Habeas Rule 8(a), which
directs a district court, “after the answer and the transcript and
record of state court proceedings are filed,” to “make such
disposition of the petition as justice shall require.” Despite the
summary nature of this disposition, in Norman v. McCotter22 we held
that a dismissal under Rule 8(a) may not transpire “on the basis of
the non-pleading factual showing of one party, without notice to
the other and an opportunity by him to respond by controverting
factual showing.”23 We found the error in McCotter to be harmless,
however, determining, after a review of the appellate record, that
even with a ten-day notice defendant would not have avoided adverse
summary judgment.24
We clarified the rule governing the applicability of this
civil actions.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 81(a)(2).
21
"The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to the extent that
they are not inconsistent with these rules, may be applied, where
appropriate, to petitions filed under these rules.” Rules
Governing § 2254 Cases, Rule 11, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.
22
765 F.2d 504 (5th Cir. 1985).
23
Id at 507. In McDonnell v. Estelle, 666 F.2d 246 (5th Cir.
1982), we applied the Rule 56(c) notice requirement to a motion to
dismiss under Habeas Rule 9(a).
24
Norman at 508.
11
notice requirement to Rule 8(a) dismissals in Dillard v.
Blackburn.25 In Dillard, after noting that there is clearly no
requirement for notice prior to every dismissal of a habeas
petition, we determined that the question was one to be decided on
a case-by-case basis:
Many habeas cases can be resolved on issues that are
fully determinable from the record and from the law. The
question facing us is whether the district court in this
case was required to give Dillard ten days’ notice before
dismissing the petition. To resolve this question we
look to the purpose and effect of the Rule 56(c) notice
provision and ask whether Dillard has suffered any
disadvantage by not having been given specific notice
that his habeas petition might be dismissed finally as a
summary judgment.26
In Dillard, as in Norman, we found that no notice was required,
expressly holding that “the ten day notice [provision] ... is not
required in habeas cases where the petitioner never claims the
benefit of notice, never claims to have been disadvantaged by the
lack of notice, and where the court is satisfied that he has not
been so disadvantaged.”27
There is no question that Rule 56(c) potentially is applicable
here, considering that in dismissing Turner’s petition the district
court relied upon matters outside of the pleadings,28 in particular
25
780 F.2d 509 (5th Cir. 1986).
26
Id. at 515.
27
Id. at 515-16.
28
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) provides that the
summary judgment procedures of Rule 56 are applicable if “matters
outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the
court.” The term “pleadings” is defined by Rule 7(a) to include a
complaint and an answer. It is noteworthy that an “answer,” in the
context of a habeas corpus proceeding, is defined by Habeas Rule 5
12
the state’s motion for summary judgment. When we review the
relevant facts of this case in light of the Dillard analysis,
however, we must conclude that no notice was required.
“The purpose of the notice provision in Rule 56(c) is to give
the nonmoving party a reasonable opportunity to submit opposing
material to create a genuine issue of material fact.”29 The only
“opposing material” Turner points to in his brief is the
speculation that something might be adduced in a federal
evidentiary hearing. The district court ruled that Turner may not
invoke such a hearing. We find no basis whatever for a reversal of
that ruling.
We now address the district court’s dismissal of Turner’s
petition and its denial of a CPC, and the application to us for a
CPC without which we have no appellate jurisdiction.30 To secure
appellate review, Turner must make a substantial showing of the
denial of a federal right.31 “This standard does not require
petitioner to show that he would prevail on the merits, but does
require him to show the issues presented are debatable among
to include not only the bare answer of the state, but also relevant
portions of the record. Both Norman and Dillard, like the instant
case, involved extraneous state memoranda or motions outside the
definition of an answer found in Habeas Rule 5, and thus those
judgments were rendered in part upon consideration of matters
outside the pleadings.
29
Dillard at 515.
30
Fed.R.App.P. 22(b); Montoya v. Collins, 988 F.2d 11 (5th
Cir.), cert. denied,
507 U.S. 1007,
113 S. Ct. 1630,
123 L. Ed. 2d 263
(1993).
31
Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880,
103 S. Ct. 3383,
77 L. Ed. 2d
1090 (1983).
13
jurists of reason.”32 In addition, “[a]lthough in a capital case
the court may properly consider the nature of the penalty in
deciding whether to grant CPC, this alone does not suffice to
justify issuing a certificate.”33
Turner’s first claim is composed of a litany of particular
instances of trial counsels’ alleged ineffective assistance.34 We
must analyze this submission under the two-pronged test for
ineffective assistance of counsel set out in Strickland v.
Washington.35 The first prong of this test mandates that we find
that counsel’s performance was deficient; in making this
determination, we consider the particular circumstances of the case
as viewed from counsels’ perspective in light of the prevailing
professional norms at the time of trial in order to discern whether
counsels’ performance fell below an “objective standard of
reasonableness.”36 If deficient performance is demonstrated, then
32
Drew v. Collins, 5 F.3d 93, 95 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,
510 U.S. 1171,
114 S. Ct. 1207,
127 L. Ed. 2d 555 (1994) (citing
Barefoot).
33
Jacobs v. Scott, 31 F.3d 1319, 1323 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,
U.S. , 115 S. Ct. 711,
130 L. Ed. 2d 618 (1995).
34
Turner’s brief does not discuss the multitude of these
alleged failures of representation. Rather than consider them
abandoned, which is the customary procedure, because of Turner’s
status as a death row inmate we exercise our discretion and elect
to examine his pleadings and the record to determine whether any
cognizable claims bearing upon his conviction or sentence are
extant.
35
466 U.S. 668,
104 S. Ct. 2052,
80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984).
36
Motley v. Collins, 18 F.3d 1223, 1226 (5th Cir.), cert.
denied, U.S. ,
115 S. Ct. 418,
130 L. Ed. 2d 333 (1994)
(quoting Strickland).
14
the petitioner must show prejudice, defined by Strickland as “a
reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional
errors, the result of the proceedings would have been different.”37
The only ineffectiveness claim addressed in any detail by
Turner’s brief centers around trial counsels’ purported failure to
make an adequate investigation. Turner now contends that had
counsel done so, they would have realized that a defense attacking
the intent to kill element of the offense offered the best prospect
of success. The evidentiary basis for this claim consists of
Turner’s second and third written statements to the police, and the
statements of two alleged eyewitnesses to the crime, Roosevelt
Turner and Derek Franklin, who claimed in interviews with the
police and a defense investigator that they had seen Turner and
Hunter struggling in the taxi prior to the murder.38 Turner
theorizes that with these two witnesses to corroborate his
statements to the police a successful defense could have been
mounted.
37
Strickland at 694.
38
This story was repeated in an affidavit by Franklin entered
into the record at the second evidentiary hearing. According to
this affidavit, Franklin and Roosevelt Turner departed Turner’s
company just before he was picked up at the gas station by Hunter.
Franklin and Roosevelt Turner followed the cab until it stopped to
let Turner out, at which point Franklin and Roosevelt Turner passed
the cab and drove around the block for another look. At that time,
Franklin stated that he and Roosevelt Turner saw Turner and Hunter
struggling in the cab. Franklin and Roosevelt Turner slowed down
to help Turner, but because there were other cars behind them they
were forced to go around the block again. When they returned the
second time, they saw Hunter’s body in the road. This affidavit
repeats the essence of the statements of Roosevelt Turner and
Franklin from February of 1986.
15
Although Turner characterizes this claim as failure of counsel
to investigate, he is, rather, seeking to second guess their trial
strategy. The testimony of the trial attorneys at the second
evidentiary hearing makes it abundantly clear that they reviewed
the reports of the police and their investigator regarding
Roosevelt Turner and Franklin. They knew that these prospective
witnesses had seen Turner struggling with Hunter prior to his
murder.39 The question thus becomes whether the trial strategy they
ultimately pursued was reasonable given the information available
to them. We perforce conclude that it was.
Turner’s argument is premised upon an analytical framework
which, focused as it is upon the two intent elements of the capital
murder charge, ignores other issues material to his culpability.
For example, the record reveals that counsels’ primary focus early
in the trial was upon the issue of identity. Trial counsel
attempted first to suppress the pretrial identifications of Turner
and then attacked those identifications during trial. They also
moved to suppress Turner’s inculpatory statements, the only
evidence placing Turner with Hunter when he was shot, and continued
to challenge the veracity and reliability of those statements after
they were admitted by bringing to the jury’s attention Turner’s
lack of education and sleep and food deprivation. Finally, the
defense moved to suppress the murder weapon, which could be tied to
Turner. While these efforts ultimately failed, that result was not
39
At trial Turner’s counsel questioned several police officers
regarding their interviews of Roosevelt Turner and Franklin.
16
a foregone conclusion; each exhibited a reasonable chance of
success, and a contrary result on any might have raised a
reasonable doubt among members of the jury.
As to trial counsels’ attack on the intent to rob element of
the offense, the defense underscored that there was no evidence
that any money was taken,40 and reasonably argued that Turner’s
theft of the cab was part of his flight and not a premeditated
attempt to steal the cab. While evidence of two extraneous
offenses was admitted to show Turner’s intent to rob Hunter, the
admissibility of those offenses was, like the result of the various
suppression motions, not written in stone. The record discloses
that trial counsel brought to the judge’s attention precedent that
the judge recognized was contrary to his ruling. In short,
Turner’s trial counsel mounted a broad defense which offered
several possibilities of raising reasonable doubt among members of
the jury as to various elements of the offense. We cannot conclude
that such a course of action was objectively unreasonable.
Our conclusion is not changed by comparing trial counsels’
strategy to the alternative strategy Turner now proffers. The
state’s forensic evidence cast extreme doubt upon the ability of
the defense to disprove that Turner’s action in shooting Hunter was
anything other than deliberate. The nature of that evidence, and
the lack of any credible challenge that it was unreliable or
40
Trial counsel elicited testimony from Jimmy Darks, the cab
driver who found Hunter’s body, that no money was missing from the
cab, and from police officers that Hunter did not appear to have
been robbed.
17
fraudulently obtained, made trial counsels’ decision not to expend
vital resources in trying to rebut it a reasonable one. Even if
Turner’s current effort to conjure up controverting forensic
evidence were successful, it would not render trial counsels’
decision objectively unreasonable.
Turner’s submission, therefore, is that trial counsel acted
unreasonably when they decided not to present a defense which:
(1) conceded identity and intent to rob, (2) relied upon the
inconclusive testimony of two questionable witnesses, and (3) was
controverted by considerable forensic evidence. This contention
does not present a debatable question for reasonable jurists. Our
conclusion is inexorable; Turner’s trial counsel did not perform
deficiently.41
Turner next challenges the trial court’s jury instruction on
the intentional element of capital murder. To circumvent the Texas
courts’ refusal to consider the claim for lack of timely objection,
Turner asserts counsels’ ineffectiveness as cause and prejudice for
his procedural default.42 On direct appeal the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals found no reversible error in the instruction as a
41
For this reason Turner’s claim that trial counsel were
ineffective for failing to request a jury instruction on the lesser
included offense of felony murder is also meritless. See Anderson
v. Collins, 18 F.3d 1208 (5th Cir. 1994).
42
Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478,
106 S. Ct. 2639,
91 L. Ed. 2d
397 (1986). Turner’s submission that Texas’ contemporaneous
objection rule is not an “independent and adequate state ground”
upon which to base a procedural default is foreclosed by our
opinion in Amos v. Scott,
61 F.3d 333 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,
116
S. Ct. 557 (1995).
18
matter of state law43 and we discern no cognizable claim under
federal constitutional law.44 Given this, Turner can demonstrate
neither prejudice under Strickland nor cause for the procedural
default.
The next grouping of ineffectiveness claims proffered by
Turner relate to the punishment phase of the trial. Turner submits
that trial counsel failed to investigate, develop, and present
mitigating evidence properly at the punishment phase. He points to
a number of prospective witnesses who now maintain, via affidavit,
that they would have testified that Turner had good qualities and
was not a troublemaker. The record, however, supports the state
habeas court’s determination that each of these proffered witnesses
ran the risk of harming Turner more than helping him and that the
decision not to call them was the product of a reasonable trial
strategy. “[F]ailure to present mitigating evidence ‘if based on
43
Turner, 805 S.W.2d at 428-30. Turner based his claim that
the instruction was erroneous on Alvarado v. State,
704 S.W.2d 36
(Tex.Crim.App. 1986) (en banc). The Court of Criminal Appeals
found the more recent case of Kinnamon v. State,
791 S.W.2d 84
(Tex.Crim.App. 1990), to be controlling, and accordingly rejected
Turner’s claim. A concurrence to the denial of Turner’s motion for
rehearing noted that Kinnamon was wrongly decided in light of
Alvarado. The concurrence observed, however, that in Turner’s
case, considering the error in the context of the instruction as a
whole, “there was no egregious harm . . . and the correct result
was reached.” Turner at 432.
44
See Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1,
114 S. Ct. 1239,
127
L. Ed. 2d 583 (1994) (indefinite instruction is not erroneous unless
there is “reasonable likelihood” that jury drew improper
conclusions from that instruction); Henderson v. Kibbe,
431 U.S.
145,
97 S. Ct. 1730,
62 L. Ed. 2d 203 (1977) (to obtain federal habeas
corpus for
erroneous jury instruction petitioner must prove instruction “by
itself so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction
violates due process”).
19
an informed and reasoned practical judgment, is well within the
range of practical choices not to be second-guessed’” and thus
cannot constitute deficient performance.45
Turner also cites trial counsels’ failure to object to certain
portions of the prosecutor’s closing argument as an example of
their ineffectiveness. Turner, again, seeks to demonstrate the
ineffectiveness of counsel to show cause and prejudice and thus
elude the state procedural bar. Based upon our review of the
relevant portions of the record we conclude that even if this issue
had been preserved for direct appeal, the error would have been
held to be harmless;46 thus, Turner cannot demonstrate Strickland
prejudice. Turner similarly has failed to meet the test for
federal habeas relief applicable to improper prosecutorial
argument, i.e., that “the misconduct [was] persistent and
pronounced or that the evidence of guilt was so insubstantial” that
but for the improper remarks the conviction or sentence would not
45
Wilkerson v. Collins, 950 F.2d 1054, 1065 (5th Cir. 1992),
cert. denied,
509 U.S. 921,
113 S. Ct. 3035,
125 L. Ed. 2d 722 (1993)
(quoting Mattheson v. King,
751 F.2d 1432, 1441 (5th Cir. 1985)).
46
To ascertain whether improper prosecutorial conduct is
harmless error, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has mandated
that courts “consider the nature and source of the error, the
degree the prosecutor emphasized the erroneous jury argument,
probable collateral implications, how much weight a juror placed on
the erroneous jury argument, and whether holding the improper jury
argument harmless would encourage the State to repeat it.” Coble
v. State, 871 S.W.2d 192, 206 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993), cert. denied,
U.S. ,
115 S. Ct. 101,
130 L. Ed. 2d 50 (1994). In this case,
the record shows the comments pointed out by Turner were minor and
fleeting, did not evidence any intentional misconduct by the
prosecutor, and were overshadowed by proper argument and the jury
charge.
20
have resulted.47
The remainder of Turner’s ineffectiveness of counsel claim
consists of challenges to trial counsels’ failure to object to a
multitude of perceived improprieties. Our review of the record
persuades that these alleged failures either did not occur, did not
constitute deficient performance, or did not affect the outcome of
the trial. For these reasons we find insufficient support for an
appeal of the district court’s finding that Turner’s claim of
ineffective assistance of counsel lacks merit.
Moving to the balance of Turner’s petition, we consider his
claim that the eighth and fourteenth amendments required that the
unadjudicated offenses entered into evidence during the punishment
phase of his trial be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Although
Turner frankly admits that neither this court nor the State of
Texas currently have such a requirement, he contends that it is
dictated by Supreme Court precedent. We are not persuaded.
Although the due process clause requires the state to prove each
element of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt to secure
a conviction,48 neither this court nor the Supreme Court has ever
held that a similar burden exists regarding the proof of facts
adduced during the sentencing phase. The precedents are to the
47
Jones v. Butler,
864 F.2d 348, 356 (5th Cir. 1988), cert.
denied,
490 U.S. 1075,
109 S. Ct. 2090,
104 L. Ed. 2d 653 (1989)
(citing Felde v. Blackburn,
795 F.2d 400 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,
484 U.S. 873 (1987)).
48
See In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358,
90 S. Ct. 1068,
25 L. Ed. 2d
368 (1970).
21
contrary.49
Turner next claims that the jury was not properly instructed
to consider mitigating evidence when determining the special
issues. Relying upon our decision in Spivey v. Zant,50 Turner
focuses upon the fact that the word “mitigating” was not used in
the jury charge for the punishment phase. He ignores the fact that
Spivey expressly approved of Texas’ capital sentencing scheme,
finding it to be a prime example of a system which focuses the
jury’s attention upon the offense and the offender in such a way as
to obviate any need for “explicit discussion of mitigating
circumstances.”51 Turner’s submission to the contrary is without
merit.
Turner claims as constitutional error the trial court’s
failure to define reasonable doubt in its instructions to the jury.
In Victor v. Nebraska52 the Supreme Court made it clear that “[t]he
beyond a reasonable doubt standard is a requirement of due process,
but the Constitution neither prohibits trial courts from defining
reasonable doubt nor requires them to do so as a matter of
49
See Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681,
108 S. Ct.
1496,
99 L. Ed. 2d 771 (1988) (jury may hear relevant evidence of
unadjudicated extraneous offenses if the court concludes, after
examining all the evidence, that the jury reasonably could find
that the accused committed the offense by a preponderance of the
evidence); United States v. Mir,
919 F.2d 940, 943 (5th Cir. 1993)
(any unadjudicated conduct considered in determining sentence must
be supported by a preponderance of the evidence).
50
661 F.2d 464 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981), cert. denied,
458 U.S.
1111,
102 S. Ct. 3495,
73 L. Ed. 2d 1374 (1982).
51
Id at 471.
52
511 U.S. 1,
114 S. Ct. 1239,
127 L. Ed. 2d 583 (1994).
22
course.”53
Turner attacks the statutory special issues under the rule of
Penry v. Lynaugh,54 contending that the jury was prevented from
considering the mitigating effect of his youth and good behavior
during his pretrial detention. Turner misapprehends the reach of
Penry. To qualify for the special exception to the scope of the
special issues carved out by Penry, proffered evidence must
demonstrate a “uniquely severe permanent handicap ... with which
the defendant was burdened through no fault of his own.”55 Further,
we have made it clear that, for evidence to have mitigating
relevance to the special issues, there must be a nexus between the
mitigating evidence and the criminal act.56 Turner’s submission
manifestly does not fall within the scope of Penry and is not
dictated by this court’s precedents. Granting Turner the relief he
here seeks would create a new rule of constitutional law on habeas
review.57
In a related vein Turner challenges the constitutionality of
the Texas special issues on the ground that, Penry evidence aside,
they do not provide the jury with an adequate means to consider all
53
Id. at 5 (emphasis added).
54
492 U.S. 302,
109 S. Ct. 2934,
106 L. Ed. 2d 256 (1989).
55
Graham v. Collins, 950 F.2d 1009, 1029 (5th Cir. 1992) (en
banc), aff’d on other grounds,
506 U.S. 461,
113 S. Ct. 892,
122
L. Ed. 2d 260 (1993).
56
Davis v. Scott, 51 F.3d 457 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,
116
S. Ct. 525 (1995).
57
Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288,
109 S. Ct. 1060,
103 L. Ed. 2d 256
(1989); Motley.
23
mitigating evidence presented. We consider this claim foreclosed
by the Supreme Court’s decision in Jurek v. Texas.58
Our reading of the Court of Criminal Appeals’ disposition of
Turner’s second state habeas application satisfies that a number of
Turner’s claims are procedurally barred.59 Because neither Turner
nor the record suggest that there exists cause and prejudice for
these procedural defaults,60 or that the failure to consider these
issues would result in a miscarriage of justice,61 we are barred
from considering these claims.62
Finally, Turner assigns as error the district court’s order
denying him leave to amend his petition to add yet another claim.
The claim involved is one of ineffective assistance of counsel on
58
428 U.S. 262,
96 S. Ct. 2950,
49 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1976) (upholding
the Texas capital sentencing procedures against eighth and
fourteenth amendment challenges). See Penry at 315 (“Penry does
not challenge the facial validity of the Texas death penalty
statute, which was upheld against an Eighth Amendment challenge in
Jurek v. Texas”).
59
These claims include a challenge to the framework within
which the Court of Criminal Appeals reviews the sufficiency of the
evidence in support of an affirmative finding on the special
issues; an attack on a jury instruction regarding the need under
Texas law for ten jurors to concur in order to render a “no”
verdict on the special issues; a claim that V.A.A.C.P. Art. 35.13
unconstitutionally prevented Turner from exercising his peremptory
challenges at the conclusion of voir dire; a claim that the jury
charge relieved the state from proving every element of the offense
by failing to properly define mens rea; and a claim that the jury
charge led the jury to misunderstand the concept of deliberate
conduct.
60
Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72 (1977).
61
Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298,
115 S. Ct. 851,
130 L. Ed. 2d 808
(1995).
62
Amos v. Scott, 61 F.3d 333 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,
116
S. Ct. 557 (1995).
24
Turner’s direct appeal, and is premised upon appellate counsel’s
failure to raise the so-called Palafox rule63 in relation to the
sufficiency of the evidence sustaining Turner’s conviction. Turner
does not dispute that this rule no longer exists, having been
abrogated by the adoption of the Texas Rules of Criminal Evidence
in 1986.64 We must conclude that the district court did not err by
denying Turner leave to add this meritless claim to his petition.
For the foregoing reasons, we DENY Turner’s requests for the
appointment of counsel and for an evidentiary hearing. Further,
because we find that the proffered claims do not contain any
indicia of merit and therefore make no substantial showing of the
denial of a federal right, we DENY Turner’s application for a
Certificate of Probable Cause. Were we to deem it an application
for a Certificate of Appealability it likewise would be DENIED.
63
Palafox v. State, 608 S.W.2d 177 (Tex.Crim.App. 1979) (en
banc). This rule requires the state to disprove beyond a
reasonable doubt exculpatory information contained in a defendant’s
confession.
64
Moody v. State, 827 S.W.2d 875 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied,
506 U.S. 839 (1992).
25
