560 F. App'x 299
5th Cir.2014Background
- Wilkins seeks a COA to pursue federal habeas review of his Texas death sentence.
- District court denied funding for an investigator/mitigation experts; Wilkins’ funding request was denied as not reasonably necessary.
- Wilkins’ federal petition alleged twenty-one grounds; district court denied all and defaulted several claims for failure to exhaust in state court.
- Texas state courts denied relief on direct appeal and post-conviction habeas; Supreme Court denied certiorari.
- This panel applies Maples and Martinez/Trevino framework to assess COA and IATC claims; ultimately denies a COA and funding.
- Concludes Wilkins’ eight IATC claims fail under Strickland and are not substantial for Martinez/Trevino relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Maples abandonment provides cause for default? | Wilkins argues Strickland abandoned him, satisfying Maples. | Court finds Strickland did not abandon Wilkins; timely, extensive petition filed. | Maples does not apply; no COA on abandonment issue. |
| Martinez/Trevino applicability to excuse default for IATC claims? | Martinez/Trevino provide cause if state counsel ineffective and claims substantial. | Ibarra controls absence of Martinez for Texas cases; Trevino later confirms but claims still lack substantial merits. | No COA; Wilkins' IATC claims are not substantial under Martinez/Trevino framework. |
| Pretrial mitigation investigation ineffective assistance claim | Ball failed to conduct reasonable mitigation investigation; prejudice shown. | Record shows investigation diligent; alleged failure is conclusory and not prejudicial. | No COA; no reasonable probability of different outcome; claim not debatable. |
| Failure to strike biased jurors or excessive security at sentencing | Ball’s failure to strike biased jurors and object to security measures prejudiced trial. | No actual bias shown; security measures within trial court’s discretion; objections would be futile. | No COA; claims not debatable or wrong as to the district court’s analysis. |
| Overall entitlement to COA given procedural posture and relief sought | Doubt exists as to district court’s handling on MAPLES/ Martinez grounds. | Threshold COA standard not met; reasonable jurists would not debate the district court’s rulings. | COA denied; district court’s denial of funding affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Maples v. Thomas, 132 S. Ct. 912 (2012) (abandonment by counsel can excuse procedural default)
- Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012) (ineffective state counsel may excuse default for IATC claims)
- Trevino v. Thaler, 133 S. Ct. 1911 (2013) (Martinez applies to Texas cases; allows IATC relief where appropriate)
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (attorney error generally cannot excuse procedural default unless exceptional)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (COA standard when district court adjudicates on procedural grounds)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- United States v. Faubion, 19 F.3d 226 (5th Cir. 1994) (prejudice standard under Strickland requires probability of different outcome)