Damon Matthews v. Lorie Davis, Director
665 F. App'x 315
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Damon Matthews was convicted of capital murder in Texas (2004) and sentenced to death; he later filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his punishment-phase representation.
- Matthews alleges trial counsel ineffectively investigated and presented mitigation evidence of possible Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) stemming from his mother’s prenatal substance use.
- He did not raise the FASD-based ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim in his initial state habeas proceeding; the Texas courts barred a later state filing as an abuse of the writ.
- Matthews seeks to overcome the procedural default under the Martinez/Trevino equitable exception by claiming his state habeas counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the claim initially, and that the underlying trial counsel claim is "substantial."
- The district court denied relief, finding Matthews failed both to show (1) that his state habeas counsel’s omission met Martinez/Trevino and (2) that trial counsel’s mitigation investigation was deficient or prejudicial under Strickland; the district court also denied a COA.
- The Fifth Circuit denied a COA, holding no reasonable jurist could debate the district court’s conclusion that Matthews did not satisfy Martinez/Trevino and that the underlying Strickland claim was insubstantial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Martinez/Trevino excuse procedural default of Matthews’s FASD-based ineffective-assistance claim | Matthews: State habeas counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the claim, so Martinez/Trevino should allow federal review | State: Matthews cannot meet Martinez/Trevino because his state habeas counsel was not ineffective; the underlying claim is insubstantial | Denied — no reasonable jurist could debate that Martinez/Trevino was not satisfied |
| Whether trial counsel’s mitigation investigation was constitutionally deficient (Strickland performance) | Matthews: Counsel failed to investigate neuropsychological testing and FASD despite available indicia | State: Trial counsel retained a psychologist and mitigation specialist, filed motions seeking funds, and reasonably relied on experts’ advice | Held insubstantial — investigation was not objectively unreasonable given expert involvement |
| Whether any deficiency prejudiced the sentencing (Strickland prejudice) | Matthews: Evidence of FASD would have shown organic brain damage and reduced moral culpability / affected sentencing outcome | State: A formal FASD diagnosis would be double-edged, likely increasing future-dangerousness and adding little beyond mitigation already presented | Held: No reasonable probability of a different outcome; prejudice not shown |
| Whether to grant Certificate of Appealability (COA) | Matthews: Issues are debatable and deserve appellate review | State: District court correctly resolved Martinez/Trevino and Strickland issues; no substantial showing of constitutional denial | COA denied — reasonable jurists could not debate the district court’s rulings |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective-assistance test: performance and prejudice)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (counsel must conduct reasonable mitigation investigation; limited investigation can be deficient)
- Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (equitable exception allowing cause to excuse procedural default when initial-review collateral counsel is ineffective)
- Trevino v. Thaler, 569 U.S. 413 (applies Martinez in certain state-court contexts)
- Trevino v. Davis, 829 F.3d 328 (5th Cir.) (explains when state habeas counsel’s omission can be objectively unreasonable and trigger Martinez/Trevino relief)
- Miller–El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (COA standard: reasonable jurists could debate correctness of district court’s resolution)