Jacoby v. Davis, 4:16-cv-03382

Petitioner Benjamin Scott Jacoby pled guilty in Texas state court to aggravated robbery (2005) and is serving two concurrent 40-year sentences.
Jacoby filed state habeas relief alleging trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate or present evidence of mental illness and for not retaining a mental-health expert during sentencing; the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied relief in 2016.
Jacoby then filed a federal § 2254 habeas petition challenging the duration of his sentence, asserting Sixth Amendment ineffective-assistance claims.
The state habeas court found Jacoby was mentally competent at plea and sentencing, that trial counsel received no credible indication of mental illness from Jacoby or family, and that the PSIR (which noted some juvenile psychiatric contact) was available to the sentencing judge.
The magistrate judge applied AEDPA deference and Strickland standards and concluded Jacoby failed to rebut state findings by clear and convincing evidence.
The magistrate recommended denying the petition with prejudice and declined to issue a certificate of appealability.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate/present evidence of mental illness at sentencing	Jacoby: counsel ignored PSIR indications and failed to explore mitigation from mental-health history	Respondent: no credible notice of current mental illness; Jacoby repeatedly denied problems; family gave no such history; PSIR was reviewed by judge	Denied — state findings that counsel had no reason to suspect mental illness are presumptively correct and unrebutted
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to retain/use a mental-health expert	Jacoby: an expert would have produced mitigating evidence to reduce sentence	Respondent: no factual basis for expert; sentencing judge had PSIR; no reasonable probability sentence would be materially reduced	Denied — no prejudice shown under Strickland; sentence would not likely have been significantly less

Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U.S. 19 (AEDPA highly deferential review of state-court decisions)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (right to present mitigating evidence)
Dale v. Quarterman, 553 F.3d 876 (Fifth Circuit prejudice standard for sentencing mitigation claims)
Moore v. Dempsey, 261 U.S. 86 (scope of federal habeas review)
Neal v. Puckett, 286 F.3d 230 (review for unreasonableness of state-court decision under AEDPA)
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (standard for certificate of appealability)