Donnie Roberts v. Rick Thaler, Director
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 9790
| 5th Cir. | 2012Background
- Roberts was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death; direct and postconviction appeals in Texas were rejected.
- Roberts sought federal habeas relief; district court denied relief but granted COA on three sentencing issues.
- Issue 1: trial court barred Dr. McQueen from stating that alcohol and cocaine dependence caused the offense; she could testify to correlations and addiction but not to causation for this defendant.
- Issue 2: trial counsel allegedly failed to object to extraneous-offense victim-impact testimony; TCCA and district court analyzed admissibility under Texas precedent and Strickland.
- Issue 3: Roberts sought to admit execution-impact testimony from a family member; offer-of-proof requirements and procedural default under Texas rules were central to preservation.
- On AEDPA review, the court held the Texas briefing rule functioned as an independent and adequate bar, and affirmed denial of habeas relief on all three claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the restriction on Dr. McQueen's testimony violate the Eighth Amendment? | Roberts | Roberts | No; claim procedurally barred and merits fail |
| Was trial counsel ineffective for failing to object to victim-impact testimony from an extraneous offense? | Roberts | Roberts | No; reasonable defense strategy under Strickland and AEDPA deferential review |
| Was Roberts entitled to execution-impact testimony from a family member, and was the issue preserved? | Roberts | Roberts | Procedurally barred; offer-of-proof requirement satisfied but default forecloses relief |
| Does Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1/Rule 103(a)(2) constitute an independent and adequate state ground for denial, barring federal review? | Roberts | Roberts | Yes; Texas briefing rule regularly followed; independent and adequate bar |
Key Cases Cited
- Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 (U.S. 1991) (victim-impact evidence not per se inadmissible; must avoid undue prejudice)
- Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274 (U.S. 2004) (mitigating evidence considerations in capital sentencing)
- Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (U.S. 1983) (expert testimony on future dangerousness not per se inadmissible)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (U.S. 2000) (unreasonable application standard under AEDPA)
- Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (S. Ct. 2011) (AEDPA deference to state courts; distinguish from Strickland review)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong deficient performance and prejudice standard)
- Premo v. Moore, 131 S. Ct. 733 (S. Ct. 2011) (AEDPA and Strickland standards interplay; deference to state court rulings)
- Finley v. Johnson, 243 F.3d 215 (5th Cir. 2001) (independent and adequate state grounds; procedural default framework)
- Koch v. Puckett, 907 F.2d 524 (5th Cir. 1990) (counsel not required to pursue futile objections)
- Cantu v. State, 939 S.W.2d 627 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (victim-impact evidence rules; specificity to named victim)
- Mathis v. State, 67 S.W.3d 918 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (limitations on victim-impact testimony under Texas law)
- Guevara v. State, 97 S.W.3d 579 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (victim-impact testimony admissibility in extraneous-offense context)
- Garcia v. State, 126 S.W.3d 921 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (medical records and victim-related testimony in sentencing)
- Mays v. State, 318 S.W.3d 368 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (admissibility of certain non-victim-offender testimony in sentencing)