Garcia White
602 F. App'x 954
5th Cir.2015Background
- In December 1989 Bonita Edwards and her daughters Bernette and Annette were murdered; the crimes remained unsolved for years.
- White was arrested for an unrelated 1995 murder; he was first questioned about the Edwards murders on July 22, 1995 and again on July 28, 1995, when after being Mirandized he waived rights and confessed to killing Bernette and Annette (he was never indicted for Bonita).
- White was convicted and sentenced to death in July 1996; the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (TCCA) affirmed on direct review, and White’s federal habeas petition was denied through the Supreme Court in 2014.
- White filed multiple subsequent state and federal habeas applications; a sixth state application was pending before the TCCA and the TCCA issued a stay “pending further order.”
- White sought Fifth Circuit authorization to file a successive § 2254 petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(A), arguing the State violated his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by failing to treat his July 28 statements as an invocation of counsel and citing his borderline intellectual functioning.
- The Fifth Circuit denied authorization because White failed to make a prima facie showing that his claim rests on a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive under § 2244(b)(2)(A); his motion for a federal stay of execution was dismissed as moot because the TCCA had stayed the execution and no execution date remained.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether White made the prima facie showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(A) to authorize a successive § 2254 petition | White: his limited intellectual functioning means his July 28, 1995 statements should have been liberally construed as an invocation of the right to counsel; this is a new rule or relies on new law analogous to Atkins/Hall | State: White fails to identify a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive that applies to his Sixth/Fourteenth Amendment claim; his petition should be dismissed under § 2244(b) | Denied — White did not show his claim relies on a new rule of constitutional law under § 2244(b)(2)(A) and failed to make the required prima facie showing |
| Whether a federal stay of execution should issue | White requested a stay pending authorization and consideration of his successive petition | State responded that TCCA had stayed execution and there was no federal execution date to enjoin | Dismissed as moot — TCCA stay left no execution date for the federal court to stay |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Coleman, 768 F.3d 367 (5th Cir. 2014) (describing appellate duties on second or successive habeas petitions)
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) (prohibiting execution of intellectually disabled defendants under Eighth Amendment)
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (prohibiting execution of defendants who were under 18 at the time of the offense)
- Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. 701 (2014) (rejecting rigid IQ cutoff that forecloses consideration of intellectual disability)
- Hatch v. Oklahoma, 92 F.3d 1012 (10th Cir. 1996) (authority that exhaustion need not be resolved before considering authorization to file a successive petition)