875 F.3d 210
5th Cir.2017Background
- Evans was convicted of murdering Crystal Jenkins; key evidence were call records from a cell phone seized from his home after police executed a warrant.
- The warrant’s “things to be seized” section failed to list items; an affidavit by Investigator Thomas described instruments of a crime and included details about Evans’s calls with Jenkins and movements. The affidavit was sworn to and signed by the issuing judicial officer, but the record is unclear whether it accompanied the warrant at execution.
- Officers seized two cell phones; one worked and its call log and cell-tower data placed the phone (and thus Evans) near White Rock Lake at the time of the murder.
- Evans’s state habeas court denied his ineffective-assistance claim that trial counsel was deficient for not moving to suppress the phone and call records; the TCCA denied relief without a written opinion.
- On federal habeas review under AEDPA, the district court denied relief; this court granted a COA only on the ineffective-assistance claim tied to the defaulted Fourth Amendment challenge and affirmed, applying Strickland/AEDPA deference.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not moving to suppress the cell phone/call records | Evans: warrant was facially invalid for lack of particularity and failure to incorporate affidavit; suppression would have succeeded, so counsel’s failure was deficient and prejudicial | State: affidavit supplied the particularity; officers reasonably relied on the warrant (affidavit signed by magistrate); counsel reasonably pursued chain-of-custody strategy | Denied — counsel not shown ineffective because evidence would fall within good-faith exception; state habeas decision not an unreasonable application of clearly established law under AEDPA |
| Whether the warrant’s omission of a seized-items list renders the search per se unconstitutional under Groh | Evans: facts materially indistinguishable from Groh so warrant was unconstitutional | State: Groh distinguishable because magistrate signed the affidavit describing items, giving officers objective basis to rely | Held: Groh distinguishable here; reasonable jurists could disagree; good-faith exception can apply |
| Whether the good-faith exception (Leon/Sheppard) to exclusion applies despite facial defect | Evans: Groh shows a warrant with no particularity cannot be relied upon; good-faith exception inapplicable | State: Leon/Sheppard allow exclusion to be withheld when reliance is objectively reasonable; magistrate’s signature on affidavit and other factors support reasonable reliance | Held: Good-faith exception plausibly applies; exclusion not compelled on AEDPA record |
| Whether AEDPA deference permits federal habeas relief on these federal-law Fourth/Strickland questions | Evans: state court misapplied Supreme Court precedent; relief warranted | State: state-court denial falls within fairminded application of Supreme Court law; federal court limited to state record per Pinholster and Richter | Held: AEDPA standard not met; federal relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551 (warrant must itself particularly describe items; warrant with no item description can be facially invalid)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule for reliance on a magistrate-issued warrant)
- Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 468 U.S. 981 (good-faith principle applied where officers reasonably relied on warrant later held invalid)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong ineffective-assistance standard: deficiency and prejudice)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (AEDPA review: deference to state-court merits rulings; standard for unreasonable application)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (federal habeas review under §2254(d) limited to the state-court record)