853 F.3d 758
5th Cir.2017Background
- Kwame Rockwell was convicted in Texas of murdering a gas-station clerk during a robbery and sentenced to death; Texas courts and a federal district court denied his habeas petitions.
- Rockwell sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge the denial of federal habeas relief on four principal claims: two ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel (IATC) claims (failure to present schizophrenia evidence and failure to present steroid-use evidence), an Atkins-based claim (execution of the mentally ill), and a challenge to Texas’s mitigation statute.
- At trial and in state proceedings, multiple mental-health evaluators produced conflicting opinions: some diagnosed or noted possible psychosis or adjustment disorder, while others concluded Rockwell was malingering or over-reporting symptoms.
- Trial counsel pursued a character- and witness-based mitigation strategy at sentencing (calling 52 witnesses) and relied on expert evaluations that cautioned against presenting mental-illness or steroid theories to the jury.
- The state habeas court and the district court applied Strickland and AEDPA deference in rejecting Rockwell’s claims; the Fifth Circuit reviewed only whether reasonable jurists could debate those rulings and denied a COA.
Issues
| Issue | Rockwell's Argument | State/Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| IATC — failure to investigate/present schizophrenia | Counsel unreasonably failed to investigate/present evidence of schizophrenia, prejudicing sentence | Counsel reasonably relied on multiple experts who found malingering/over-reporting; presenting illness would invite damaging rebuttal and disclosures | No COA: decision to forgo mental-illness theory was reasonable and not debatable |
| IATC — failure to investigate/present steroid use | Counsel should have investigated/called witnesses to show steroid-induced behavior | Counsel obtained toxicology advice that steroids would not explain the crime; calling witnesses risked harmful cross-examination and harmed character theory | No COA: counsel’s choice to decline steroid theory was reasonable |
| Atkins claim — execution of mentally ill | Atkins prohibits executing persons with serious mental impairment; Rockwell’s mental illness should bar execution | Atkins applies to intellectual disability, not general mental illness; Fifth Circuit precedent rejects extending Atkins to mental illness | No COA: Atkins does not prohibit execution of the mentally ill |
| Texas mitigation statute — limits on mitigating evidence | The statute (art. 37.071 §2(f)(4)) unconstitutionally restricts juries from considering mitigating evidence unrelated to moral blameworthiness | Statute permits consideration of all evidence admitted at guilt and punishment stages; precedent upholds statute as constitutional | No COA: statute does not unconstitutionally limit mitigating evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759 (2017) (COA standard and substantial-showing requirement)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (standard for COA inquiry)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (ineffective-assistance-of-counsel framework)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (reasonableness of state-court application of Strickland)
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) (Eighth Amendment bar on executing intellectually disabled persons)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (2011) (presumption of reasonable professional judgment for counsel)