Diaz, Sammuel Medrano AKA Diaz, Samuel
WR-51,622-02
| Tex. App. | Jun 8, 2015Background
- Petitioner Samuel Medrano Diaz pleaded guilty in 1996 to murder in Harris County, Texas (Cause No. 714137) and was sentenced to life imprisonment; he claims counsel coerced the plea by promising a light sentence.
- Direct appeal affirmed by the Texas Fourteenth Court of Appeals in 1998; PDR to Texas Court of Criminal Appeals refused; petitioner alleges appellate counsel failed to notify him or properly pursue appeals.
- Petitioner filed a state habeas application in 2002 and a federal 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition (H-02-2162) that district court dismissed as time-barred in October 2002; COA denied.
- Petitioner filed a later state application received Feb 27, 2014, which the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed without written order; he then filed a second federal § 2254 in 2014, which the Southern District dismissed as untimely under AEDPA; COA denied by the Fifth Circuit (Dec. 10, 2014).
- Core habeas claims: ineffective assistance of trial counsel (coercion and failure to move to dismiss allegedly defective indictment), ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, prosecutorial/judicial misconduct, and abuse of discretion in accepting plea and imposing a life sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness under AEDPA §2244(d) | Diaz contends his conviction is not "final" because of state court misconduct and intertwined alias cause numbers, and that equitable tolling/statutory tolling apply. | Respondent (and courts) argue Diaz's conviction became final in 1998; his federal petitions were filed long after the one-year AEDPA limitation and his state filings did not toll it because they were filed after expiration. | Courts held the §2254 petition untimely; AEDPA limitations expired Dec. 22, 1999; no statutory or equitable tolling shown; dismissal with prejudice. |
| Successive / abuse of the writ (28 U.S.C. §2244(b)) | Diaz contends later filings raise new claims he could not have known earlier and that respondent failed to address claims, preserving them. | Court treats later federal filing as successive or untimely because claims were or could have been raised earlier; Fifth Circuit cited In re Flowers. | Court concluded petitioner failed to show entitlement to proceed and denied COA. |
| Ineffective assistance of trial counsel (Strickland) | Diaz argues counsel coerced plea by misrepresenting likely sentence and failed to move to dismiss a "wildly charged" indictment, aiding prosecution and causing life sentence. | State courts applied Strickland and found counsel not constitutionally ineffective; respondent contends the state-court resolution is reasonable under AEDPA. | Courts determined petitioner did not overcome AEDPA deference or show the state-court Strickland application was objectively unreasonable; claims not meritorious on collateral review. |
| Entitlement to Certificate of Appealability (COA) | Diaz argues his claims present substantial constitutional questions and reasonable jurists could debate the rulings. | Respondent and courts assert petitioner failed to make a "substantial showing" of constitutional error; procedural/default/time-bar rulings control. | Fifth Circuit and district court denied COA; reasonable jurists would not debate the procedural rulings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel).
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (standard for §2254(d) review of state-court decisions).
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (standard for issuing a certificate of appealability).
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (COA standard when dismissal rests on procedural grounds).
- In re Flowers, 595 F.3d 204 (5th Cir. 2010) (successive-petition / abuse-of-the-writ principles in the Fifth Circuit).
- Scott v. Johnson, 227 F.3d 260 (5th Cir. 2000) (AEDPA tolling; state habeas filed after limitations period does not toll).
- Alexander v. Cockrell, 294 F.3d 626 (5th Cir. 2002) (equitable tolling requires rare and exceptional circumstances).
- Catalan v. Cockrell, 315 F.3d 491 (5th Cir. 2002) (applying Strickland analysis and AEDPA deference).