Balentine v. Thaler, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 23699

Background

Balentine murdered three teenagers in Amarillo, Texas on January 21, 1998; convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death in April 1999; CCA affirmed conviction and sentence in 2002.
Balentine filed a state post-conviction habeas corpus petition in January 2001 with 21 grounds; state district court denied relief in October 2002; CCA denied relief in December 2002.
Balentine pursued a federal habeas petition filed December 2003 and amended August 2004; claimed nine grounds including a right to individualized sentencing; district court denied; this court affirmed in 2009.
Balentine filed a second state habeas application under Art. 11.071 in August 2009 alleging ineffective assistance in mitigating investigation and Batson concerns; CCA dismissed September 2009 without explanation of grounds.
Balentine filed a Rule 60(b) motion in federal court seeking relief from the 2008 rulings; district court denied; stayed execution; this court granted stay pending en banc reconsideration, which was later withdrawn and substituted.
On appeal, the court evaluates whether the 2009 CCA order rested on independent adequate state grounds, and whether Rule 60(b) relief was proper given AEDPA and Crosby/Ruiz framework; ultimately affirms district court’s denial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 60(b) relief may be used to revisit merits-based habeas determinations when the state court’s ruling rests on independent state grounds	Balentine argues 60(b) can reach merits if state ruling was on federal merits	Texas contends 60(b) addresses non-merits issues only; would not override AEDPA limits	Rule 60(b) relief was not available to merits; the district court did not abuse discretion
Whether the 2009 Texas Court of Criminal Appeals order reached the merits or rested on an independent adequate state ground	Balentine asserts the Texas court reached merits of Wiggins claim	Texas contends decision rested on Article 11.071 §5(a) grounds independent of federal merits	The order rested on independent and adequate state grounds; no merits review at federal level
Whether Balentine's Wiggins claim was properly presented in the federal petition and AEDPA time bar analysis	Balentine contends his Wiggins claim was raised as IAC in federal petition and not a new claim	Texas argues the Wiggins claim was not presented as such in initial petition, affecting AEDPA interpretation	The Wiggins claim was presented as Sixth Amendment IAC; not a new claim barred by AEDPA
Whether the balance of balancing the Crosby/ Ruiz/ Coleman framework supports treating the state-court denial as a merits determination or not	Balentine relies on Ruiz to treat the Texas denial as merits-based	Texas relies on Coleman Long framework to treat the denial as based on state grounds	Ruiz-based inference of merits absence was rejected; Coleman framework governs, supporting state-ground basis
Whether Balentine adequately satisfied Article 11.071 §5(a) subsections to permit merits review in state court	Balentine argued facts satisfied §5(a)(1) or (3) for merits review	State contends he failed to show unavailability or clear and convincing evidence under the statute	Balentine failed to present sufficient specific facts under §5(a)(1) and (3); merits review barred

Key Cases Cited

Crosby v. United States, 545 U.S. 524 (Supreme Court, 2005) (AEDPA and Rule 60(b) harmony; specify when 60(b) can apply to non-merits)
Ruiz v. Quarterman, 504 F.3d 523 (5th Cir. 2007) (presumption about whether state court decision rested on federal grounds)
Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1991) (presumption framework for independent and adequate state grounds; avoid merits review when applicable)
Long v. Johnson, 463 U.S. 1032 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1983) (presumption for unclear state-ground determinations)
Ex parte Campbell, 226 S.W.3d 418 (Tex. Crim. App., 2007) (Texas standard for evaluating whether a subsequent application satisfies §5(a))