Charles v. Thaler, 629 F.3d 494

Background

Charles pled guilty to attempted burglary of a habitation, aggravated robbery, and aggravated kidnapping; punishment trial occurred with a jury.
Victim Diaz was kidnapped, assaulted, robbed, and raped during the same incident spree by Charles and others when he was fourteen.
Charles was certified for punishment as an adult and received concurrent sentences: 3 years probation for attempted burglary, 15 years for aggravated robbery, and 40 years for aggravated kidnapping.
Diaz later became pregnant from the rape and underwent an abortion; Diaz and Perez were victims in the park incident and subsequent chase.
Charles testified in his own defense, claiming intoxication and denial of certain school-disruptive acts; he argued witnesses lied about his admissions.
State habeas corpus proceedings challenged ineffective assistance of counsel; the district court denied relief but granted a COA.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Parole-argument prejudice to sentence	Charles argues improper parole-argument tainted sentencing.	Thaler asserts no substantial prejudice; sentences within range and jurors instructed to ignore parole effects.	No reasonable probability of significantly reduced sentence; prejudice not shown.
Testimony that Charles minimized his role	Carter's testimony was improper opinion testimony and counsel erred by not objecting.	Testimony upheld as permissible lay opinion; no prejudice shown.	Admissible lay opinion; no Strickland prejudice.
Admission of unrecorded confession to hitting Diaz	Counsel should have objected to unrecorded custodial statement under art. 38.22; prejudice alleged.	Strategic decision not to object; avoids highlighting testimony; no prejudice.	Counsel's strategy reasonable; no Strickland prejudice.
Eliciting and cross-examining school misconduct	Counsel erred by eliciting expulsion and failing to object to cross-examination.	Strategy to portray youth; article 37.07 notice not required for cross-examination; no prejudice.	Counsel not deficient; any error harmless.
Cross-examination about Ramirez's statements	Questions about Ramirez's statements were improper hearsay/Confrontation Clause violation.	Prosecutor's questions proper; no Confrontation Clause issue in sentencing context; no prejudice.	No federal error; no prejudice.

Key Cases Cited

Chester v. State, 167 S.W.3d 935 (Tex.App. 2005) (prosecutor may not instruct jury on parole effects during punishment)
Galvan v. Cockrell, 293 F.3d 760 (5th Cir. 2002) (jury instructed to follow court's instructions; no parole-based prejudice)
Schaetzle v. Cockrell, 343 F.3d 440 (5th Cir. 2003) (AEDPA deferential review of state court Strickland rulings)
White v. Thaler, 610 F.3d 890 (5th Cir. 2010) (AEDPA deference where state court addressed Strickland prongs)
Henderson v. Cockrell, 333 F.3d 592 (5th Cir. 2003) (AEDPA deference and standard for deficient performance)
Ward v. Dretke, 420 F.3d 479 (5th Cir. 2005) (state evidentiary rulings and strategic decisions under Strickland)
Fuentes v. State, 991 S.W.2d 267 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999) (impeachment with otherwise inadmissible evidence permissible to open the door)
McClenton v. State, 167 S.W.3d 86 (Tex.App. 2005) (hearsay and Confrontation Clause considerations in impeachment)
Jaubert v. State, 74 S.W.3d 1 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002) (notice requirements for extraneous acts evidence; timing not jurisdictional)
Dale v. Quarterman, 553 F.3d 876 (5th Cir. 2008) (Strickland prejudice analysis with sentencing considerations)
Spriggs v. Collins, 993 F.2d 85 (5th Cir. 1993) (definition of prejudice in sentencing ineffective assistance)
Lyons v. McCotter, 770 F.2d 529 (5th Cir. 1985) (limits of trial strategy and objecting to prejudicial evidence)
Torres v. State, 92 S.W.3d 911 (Tex.App. 2002) (propriety of certain closing arguments under state law)
Linder v. State, 828 S.W.2d 290 (Tex.App. 1992) (appellate review of closing-argument guidance)