John Ramirez v. William Stephens, Director
641 F. App'x 312
5th Cir.2016Background
- Ramirez was convicted in Texas state court of capital murder for stabbing Pablo Castro to death during a robbery; convicted in 2008 and sentenced to death after a separate punishment phase where Ramirez directed counsel not to present additional mitigation evidence.
- Trial counsel used juror questionnaires and conducted voir dire; Ramirez was absent for a bench conference in which 52 juror strikes were agreed to; public seating for jury selection and alleged shackling issues were also raised later.
- Ramirez pursued state habeas relief raising procedural and ineffective-assistance claims; the state habeas court held many claims procedurally defaulted and rejected Strickland claims on performance and prejudice grounds, crediting trial counsel’s strategy and Dr. Martinez’s competence finding.
- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied relief; the federal district court denied federal habeas relief under AEDPA and refused a Certificate of Appealability (COA).
- On appeal for a COA to the Fifth Circuit, the court conducted a threshold AEDPA/COA review and denied a COA, concluding reasonable jurists would not debate the district court’s procedural default rulings or the denial of Strickland claims.
Issues
| Issue | Ramirez's Argument | State/Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural default of public-trial, presence, and shackling claims | Ramos (Ramirez) contends contemporaneous-objection rule was not complied with but errors were constitutional and not waived | Texas contemporaneous-objection rule is an adequate state ground; Ramirez failed to show cause and prejudice or actual innocence | COA denied: claims procedurally defaulted; reasonable jurists would not debate correctness |
| Ineffective assistance — voir dire on death-penalty views | Counsel failed to directly ask jurors about death-penalty/mitigation views and should have used different selection methods | Counsel used questionnaires and voir dire consistent with strategy; tactical choices entitled to deference | COA denied: no debatable Strickland violation |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to object to 404(b) evidence | Counsel failed to object to admission of extraneous-offense evidence and lack of written 404(b) notice | State court found evidence was same-transaction/contextual and admissible; state-law evidentiary ruling binds habeas review | COA denied: no debatable Strickland violation or fundamental unfairness |
| Ineffective assistance — mitigation abandoned at defendant's direction; competency | Counsel failed to investigate/present mitigation and should have questioned Ramirez’s competence to waive mitigation | Trial counsel investigated, presented some mitigation, and reasonably honored Ramirez’s informed, coherent waiver; state court credited competence findings | COA denied: no debatable Strickland violation because waiver was competent and counsel’s conduct reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (COA standard requires jurists find district court decision debatable)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (standards for COA when district court decides on procedural grounds versus merits)
- Reed v. Stephens, 739 F.3d 753 (5th Cir.) (COA jurisdictional prerequisites and review scope)
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (procedural default and adequate, independent state grounds doctrine)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (deference to counsel under Strickland)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (AEDPA limits federal habeas review of state-court determinations)
- Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719 (defendant may challenge jurors with dogmatic death-penalty views)
- Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (failure to investigate mitigation can be Strickland violation)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (counsel’s duty to investigate for mitigation)
- Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622 (shackling of defendant and due process limits)
- Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74 (state-court interpretation of state law binds federal habeas)
- Wood v. Allen, 558 U.S. 290 (federal courts must defer to state-court factual findings)
- Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 470 U.S. 522 (presence of defendant at proceedings and due process)
- Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730 (limits of right to presence when presence would be useless)