Balentine v. Thaler, 629 F.3d 470

Background

Balentine murdered three teenagers in Amarillo, Texas in 1998 and was sentenced to death after a 1999 capital murder conviction.
Balentine’s state habeas petitions and direct appeals culminated in a 2002 Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denial and a 2009 denial of subsequent state relief.
Balentine filed a federal habeas petition in 2003, amended in 2004, asserting ineffective assistance of counsel during sentencing under Lockett/Wiggins principles.
Balentine later sought Rule 60(b) relief in federal court after the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed his 2009 state application.
The district court denied relief; Balentine challenged that ruling in this Fifth Circuit appeal seeking reversal and reconciling with AEDPA and state-ground rules.
The panel initially granted rehearing and substituted an opinion, ultimately affirming the district court’s denial and holding that the 2009 Texas ruling rested on independent and adequate state grounds.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 60(b) relief is proper given Crosby and whether it targets a merits ruling.	Balentine argues district court misapplied Crosby, treating the Wiggins claim as non-merits-based and thus allowable under Rule 60(b).	Thaler contends Rule 60(b) cannot be used to revisit a merits-based habeas denial and that the challenged ruling rested on procedural grounds.	Rule 60(b) relief denied; district court did not abuse discretion because the underlying grounds were independent state grounds or procedurally barred.
Whether Balentine properly raised the Wiggins ineffective-assistance claim in his federal petition.	Balentine contends the Wiggins claim was presented in his initial federal petition and thus not a new AEDPA bar.	Texas argues the Wiggins claim was not raised in the initial filing and appeared for the first time in the Rule 60(b) motion, making it a successive petition barred by AEDPA.	The claim was properly considered as raised in federal petition; not a new claim barred by AEDPA for purposes of Rule 60(b).
Whether the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ 2009 denial rested on independent and adequate state grounds.	Balentine asserts the 2009 denial rested on federal merits rather than state grounds due to prior guidance and isnot independent of federal law.	Texas contends the 2009 denial rested on Art. 11.071 §5(a) requirements and state procedural grounds, independently of the federal merits.	The 2009 CCA denial rested on independent and adequate state grounds; merits not reached.
Whether the 2009 CCA ruling or the district court’s analysis complied with AEDPA and Long Coleman principles.	Balentine contends the court should apply Ruiz/Hughes to treat the Texas ruling as a merits decision or as interwoven with federal law.	Texas argues that the state ruling is proper state-ground adjudication; federal review is barred absent new facts or rules.	AEDPA standards satisfied; the district court did not err in denying Rule 60(b) relief.

Key Cases Cited

Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (preserves state grounds rule; Long presumption not applied to all cases)
Long v. Johnson, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983) (framework for distinguishing state and federal grounds (interwoven vs independent))
Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983) (state grounds analysis when reviewing habeas dismissals)
Ruiz v. Quarterman, 504 F.3d 523 (5th Cir. 2007) (treats state-ground determinations in balance with federal merits; informs independent/adequate ground analysis)
Hughes v. Quarterman, 530 F.3d 336 (5th Cir. 2008) (addressing similar AEDPA/Rule 60(b) interplay and exhaustion issues)
Crosby v. United States, 545 U.S. 524 (2005) (Rule 60(b) relief when not challenging merits; distinguishes procedural errors)
Ex parte Campbell, 226 S.W.3d 418 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (Texas standard for evaluating subsequent habeas applications; state-ground inquiry)
Sawyer v. Whitley, 505 U.S. 333 (1992) (fundamental miscarriage of justice doctrine context for Wiggins-like claims)
Ex parte Blue, 230 S.W.3d 151 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (death-penalty ineligibility and how it interacts with Section 5(a)(3))
Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003) (defining reasonable investigation for mitigation evidence)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (2005) (context for Batson and comparative juror analysis)