Davila v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 2058

Background

Erick Davila shot into a birthday gathering, killing two and wounding others; convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death.
At trial the judge gave a transferred-intent jury instruction over defense objection; the jury convicted.
Appellate counsel challenged sufficiency of evidence but did not challenge the transferred-intent instruction; conviction and sentence were affirmed.
Davila’s state habeas counsel did not raise an ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel claim; the Texas court denied state habeas relief.
In federal habeas, Davila argued his state habeas counsel’s ineffective assistance excused the procedural default of his appellate-ineffectiveness claim under Martinez v. Ryan and Trevino v. Thaler. District court and Fifth Circuit rejected that extension; Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Martinez/Trevino allow state postconviction counsel’s ineffective assistance to excuse procedural default of ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel claims	Davila: Martinez/Trevino should be extended so ineffective state habeas counsel can supply cause to excuse default of appellate-ineffectiveness claims	State (and majority): Martinez is a narrow equitable exception limited to trial-ineffectiveness claims tied to initial-review collateral proceedings; it should not be extended	No. Court refused to extend Martinez/Trevino to appellate-ineffectiveness claims
Whether attorney error in state postconviction proceedings can constitute "cause" to excuse procedural default generally	Davila: attorney error that prevents raising appellate-ineffectiveness claim should be treated as cause	Court: Coleman remains the general rule; attorney error in postconviction proceedings ordinarily cannot supply cause because there is no constitutional right to counsel in such proceedings	Court reaffirmed Coleman: attorney error in postconviction proceedings does not ordinarily constitute cause
Whether equitable concerns that justified Martinez apply to appellate-ineffectiveness claims	Davila: appellate-ineffectiveness claims risk escaping review similarly to trial-ineffectiveness claims	Court: trial rights are uniquely important; appellate-ineffectiveness claims by nature arise post-appeal, and States did not deliberately channel them to collateral review; systemic costs would be substantial if expanded	Court held Martinez’s equitable rationale does not extend to appellate-ineffectiveness claims
Systemic and federalism impact of expanding Martinez	Davila: expansion would be manageable and fair; like cases should be treated alike	Court: expansion would flood federal courts, create gateway to review of many defaulted trial errors, and burden federalism/comity interests	Court declined expansion due to systemic costs and limited systemic benefit

Key Cases Cited

Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (establishes that attorney errors in state postconviction proceedings generally do not constitute cause to excuse procedural defaults)
Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (creates narrow equitable exception permitting ineffective-state-habeas-counsel to supply cause for defaulted ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claims in initial-review collateral proceedings)
Trevino v. Thaler, 569 U.S. 413 (clarifies Martinez applies where state procedures effectively force trial-ineffectiveness claims into collateral review)
Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 (recognizes constitutional guarantee of effective counsel on first appeal as of right)
Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478 (defines "cause" as an objective external factor and explains attorney error may be "cause" if it amounts to constitutional ineffectiveness)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (standard for ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims)
Edwards v. Carpenter, 529 U.S. 446 (attorney error is cause only if it amounts to constitutional ineffective assistance)
Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72 (prejudice-and-cause framework for overcoming procedural default)