LeJames Norman v. William Stephens, Director
817 F.3d 226
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Norman and accomplice Ramey committed a capital murder in Edna, Texas, leading to Norman’s capital-murder indictment and a life vs. death sentencing decision.
- During sentencing, the defense emphasized mitigation and Norman’s lack of future danger; the state presented extensive prior criminal history and violent conduct.
- Neuropsychological evidence was pursued in preparation for sentencing, but no neuropsychological expert testified at trial.
- The district court denied the habeas petition and a COA sua sponte; Norman sought a COA on three issues.
- Norman’s federal petition was amended to rely on a Strickland-based IAC theory: failure to hire a neuropsychological expert following Perry’s recommendation; the district court found the claim unexhausted and procedurally barred.
- Norman challenged the procedural default under Martinez/Trevino and argued for relief via cause and prejudice to overcome default.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court should have granted an evidentiary hearing. | Norman argues for a hearing to develop IAC evidence. | The court reasoned no factual dispute warrants relief. | Denied; no substantial factual dispute; hearing not required. |
| Whether the district court applied an incorrect standard of review for IAC claims against postconviction counsel. | Norman asserts misapplication of standard under Martinez/Trevino. | Court properly treated default and merits; no error in standard of review. | Denied; standard correctly applied. |
| Whether reasonable jurists could dispute that Norman received effective trial counsel. | Norman contends trial counsel’s failure to hire a neuropsychologist was deficient. | Deficiency not shown to cause prejudice; Mayfield report cumulative. | Denied; no substantial showing of prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012) (exception to procedural default for ineffective-assistance claims in initial-review collateral proceedings)
- Trevino v. Thaler, 133 S. Ct. 1911 (2013) (Texas-like procedural regime; allows Martinez exception)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 420 (2000) (definition of failing to develop factual basis; diligence standard)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (deferred to determine whether denial on merits or procedural grounds is debatable)
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (independent-and-adequate-state-ground doctrine; cause and prejudice analysis)
- Pruitt v. Neal, 788 F.3d 248 (7th Cir. 2015) (example of IAC cases with mental illness issues; distinguishable facts)