Armstrong, Douglas Tyrone, WR-78,106-01

Background

Applicant Douglas Tyrone Armstrong sought post-conviction habeas relief claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to discover and present favorable psychological expert testimony.
Habeas counsel proffered out-of-state psychologists as the favorable experts; those experts were not used at trial.
The habeas court recommended denying relief and found it would not have approved funds for out-of-state experts.
The habeas court also found the mitigating evidence proffered (poverty and violence in Applicant’s upbringing) was unlikely to persuade a Hidalgo County jury because such conditions are common in the community.
The majority granted relief, concluding counsel was ineffective for failing to discover the favorable expert testimony; the dissent (Keller, P.J.) argues the habeas court’s factual findings (including unavailability/approval of out-of-state experts and likely impact on a local jury) are supported and entitled to deference.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Counsel's ineffectiveness for failing to locate/present expert witnesses	Habeas counsel found out-of-state psychologists whose testimony would have helped mitigation; counsel was ineffective for not discovering/presenting them	The proffered experts were out-of-state and the habeas court would not have funded them; Applicant failed to show local experts were unavailable or that proffered testimony could have been presented at trial	Majority: counsel was ineffective; Dissent: habeas court's finding that experts were not necessarily available locally and funding would be denied is supported, so no relief should be granted
Burden to show expert availability	Applicant must prove experts existed and were locatable for trial	State/ habeas court: Applicant failed to show experts could have been presented at trial or located via reasonable investigation	Court required Applicant to show availability; dissent emphasizes Applicant did not meet that burden
Prejudice inquiry under Strickland — relevance of local jury tendencies	Applicant argues the proffered mitigation would have had adverse effect regardless of local jury context	Habeas court considered likely Hidalgo County jury reaction given commonality of similar mitigating conditions; dissent defends deference to that local assessment	Majority cautions against relying on idiosyncratic local tendencies; dissent argues assessing likely local jury reaction is appropriate and entitled to deference
Approval of funds for out-of-state experts	Applicant implies counsel reasonably sought the best experts even if out-of-state	Habeas court would not have approved out-of-state funding absent special need; local experts appear available	Dissent holds denial of funding was not an abuse of discretion here; court should defer to habeas court findings

Key Cases Cited

Ex parte Owens, 515 S.W.3d 891 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (deference to trial judge’s factual findings when supported by the record)
Ex parte Flores, 387 S.W.3d 626 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (choice of local hands-on expert over out-of-state research expert generally not deficient performance)
Ex parte Torres, 483 S.W.3d 35 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (applicant bears burden to prove habeas claims by a preponderance of the evidence)
Ex parte White, 160 S.W.3d 46 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (to prevail on an ineffective-assistance claim based on an uncalled witness, applicant must show the witness was available and their testimony would have benefitted the defense)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishing prejudice and performance standard for ineffective-assistance claims; reviewing courts must exclude arbitrary or capricious decisionmakers)