Cantu v. Thaler, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 1574

Cantú was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death; his state habeas petition was denied before he sought federal habeas relief.
The defense declined a neuropsychological evaluation for strategic reasons, arguing it could reveal sociopathy and undermine a life-without-parole strategy.
At sentencing, defense presented witnesses aiming to portray Cantú as stable, transformed, and not future dangerous, while disputing the notion of bipolar disorder.
Cantú alleged ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing and conviction phases, and claimed actual innocence; the district court rejected all claims.
On review, the Fifth Circuit applied AEDPA deference, reviewing sentencing-strategy decisions under Strickland for deficiency and prejudice, and evaluated procedural default and Schlup/Herrerainnocence standards for innocence claims.
The court affirmed dismissal of all three claims, holding the state court’s decisions were not objectively unreasonable and Cantú failed to meet gateway or actual-innocence standards.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
IAC at sentencing	Cantú argues counsel failed to pursue bipolar-mitigation evidence.	Counsel reasonably chose strategy and believed mental-health evidence would be inconsistent with trial goals.	Denied; Strickland-based review found no unreasonable application of strategy.
IAC at conviction phase (procedural default)	Counsel was ineffective in discovery and presentation of evidence of innocence; gateway innocence claim under 11.071(5)(a)(2) should be considered.	State court would bar a successive petition; Schlup gateway not satisfied; Coleman exceptions inapplicable.	Denied; district court correct to treat as procedurally defaulted and not reviewable.
Actual innocence freestanding claim	New inconsistencies show actual innocence and warrant relief under Herrera and related standards.	Actual innocence is not cognizable in the Fifth Circuit habeas corpus and Schlup/Herreratrends do not support relief here.	Denied; Herrera actual-innocence standard not met; not cognizable.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (test for ineffective assistance; deficient performance and prejudice)
Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (U.S. 2003) (clear applicability of Strickland; importance of investigation)
Neal v. Puckett, 286 F.3d 230 (5th Cir. 2002) (strategic deference in death-penalty cases; scope of investigation)
Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (U.S. 1995) (gateway to actual innocence for habeas; new reliable evidence required)
Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (U.S. 1993) (freestanding actual-innocence claim exceptionally difficult; high standard)
Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (U.S. 1991) (procedural-default exceptions; cause and prejudice/fundamental miscarriage)
Ex parte Reed, 271 S.W.3d 698 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (gateway-innocence standards guiding §5(a)(2) review in Texas)
Finley v. Johnson, 243 F.3d 215 (5th Cir. 2001) (habeas investigations and procedural-default concepts)
Lucas v. Johnson, 132 F.3d 1069 (5th Cir. 1998) (application of Strickland and deference to trial strategy)
Buntion v. Quarterman, 524 F.3d 664 (5th Cir. 2008) (procedural-default and cumulative-errors considerations)