Joseph Garcia v. Lorie Davis, Director, 704 F. App'x 316

Background

Joseph C. Garcia, one of seven inmates who escaped in December 2000 after stealing firearms, was convicted in Texas of capital murder for the December 24, 2000 killing of Officer Aubrey Hawkins during a sporting-goods-store robbery. Garcia was sentenced to death.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (TCCA) affirmed conviction and sentence; a subsequent state habeas application was denied. Garcia then filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 raising, among others, ineffective-assistance and jury-charge challenges.
The district court held an evidentiary hearing on some unexhausted claims (to resolve cause and prejudice), but excluded Garcia’s claims alleging ineffective assistance during jury selection; it denied relief and a COA.
Garcia sought a COA on multiple claims: (1) trial counsel failed to request an anti-parties instruction at penalty phase; (2) trial counsel failed to object to prosecutor’s closing argument; (3) appellate counsel was ineffective for not challenging admission of escape evidence; (4) the jury-charge term “probability” is unconstitutionally vague; and (5) Texas’ scheme fails to require the jury to find absence of sufficient mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. He also appealed denial of evidentiary hearings on jury-selection claims.
The Fifth Circuit denied a COA on all claims and affirmed the denial of evidentiary hearings, applying AEDPA deference to state-court rulings and Strickland standards for ineffective-assistance claims.

Issues

Issue	Garcia’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Trial counsel failed to request anti-parties instruction at penalty phase	Counsel was ineffective for not requesting an anti-parties charge after Law of Parties instruction in guilt phase	The second special issue at punishment sufficiently individualized culpability and acted as an anti-parties instruction	Denied COA; no deficient performance because additional/duplicative instruction was meritless under state and federal law
Trial counsel failed to object to prosecutor’s closing argument about unanimity	Prosecutor’s comments improperly allowed conviction without juror unanimity on whether killing was as a peace officer or in course of robbery	Prosecutor’s alternative theories were alternative means of committing single offense (capital murder), not separate offenses; no unanimity requirement as argued	Claim rejected by district court; Garcia did not preserve a distinct closing-argument claim on appeal, so not considered
Appellate counsel ineffective for not challenging admission of prison-escape evidence	Appellate counsel should have argued extraneous-offense evidence was unduly prejudicial	Claim was not raised on direct appeal and was procedurally defaulted; Martinez exception does not apply to appellate counsel claims (per Davila)	Procedurally barred; COA denied because Martinez does not excuse default for appellate-counsel claims
"Probability" in special issue is unconstitutionally vague	Term was vague and juror confusion at voir dire shows it misled jury	Fifth Circuit precedent forecloses vagueness challenges to the term as used in Texas special issue	Denied COA; Garcia conceded precedent controls and did not preserve his specific voir dire-based argument
Texas scheme must require jury to find absence of sufficient mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt	Under Apprendi/Ring/Hurst, any fact that exposes defendant to death must be found beyond reasonable doubt	Fifth Circuit precedent holds Texas scheme does not violate Apprendi/Ring; mitigating circumstances reduce sentence from death rather than increase it	Denied COA; Hurst did not disturb Fifth Circuit precedent and Garcia failed to show otherwise
Denial of evidentiary hearing on jury-selection IAC claims (voir dire procedure change; for-cause dismissal of juror)	District court abused discretion by excluding hearings; factual development could show prejudice	Garcia failed to identify facts that, if proven, would establish Strickland prejudice; trial court’s factual findings (juror demeanor) supported for-cause ruling	No abuse of discretion; evidentiary hearings properly denied because no factual dispute could entitle Garcia to relief

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance two-part standard)
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (COA standard; jurists-of-reason inquiry)
Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782 (capital punishment individualized culpability principle)
Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (jury must find facts increasing maximum penalty)
Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (procedural-default / cause-and-prejudice framework)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (deference/Strickland performance inquiry)
Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38 (for-cause removal of juror with views on capital punishment)
Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (deference to trial judge on juror credibility/demeanor)