Licho Escamilla v. William Stephens, Director
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 7015
| 5th Cir. | 2014Background
- Licho Escamilla was convicted by a jury of capital murder of Dallas Officer James; guilt phase included confrontation at a DMX nightclub; he was nineteen at the time.
- During punishment, the State emphasized past criminal history, juvenile delinquency, and a prior murder; defense highlighted Licho’s family relationships and the impact of his mother’s death.
- Licho was sentenced to death on October 31, 2002; direct appeal upheld the conviction in 2004.
- In 2006, state habeas petition claimed ineffective-assistance of trial counsel for failing to investigate/present mitigating evidence; post-conviction records later revealed extensive mitigating history not presented at trial.
- State habeas court denied relief; in 2008, federal habeas petition was denied; Licho later sought relief under Martinez v. Ryan to challenge state habeas counsel’s effectiveness.
- The district court denied the Martinez-based motion; the court and court of appeals granted a COA on the trial-counsel mitigation claim but denied a COA on Martinez-based reliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel’s mitigation investigation/presentation violated Strickland | Licho | Escamilla | COA granted for this issue |
| Whether Martinez v. Ryan allows consideration of new evidence not presented in state court | Licho | Escamilla | COA denied for this issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court 2000) (mitigating evidence may shift outcome; not justified as strategy)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (Supreme Court 2003) (inadequate social-history investigation prejudices)
- Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (Supreme Court 2005) (counsel must review prosecution’s file before sentencing)
- Sears v. Upton, 130 S. Ct. 3259 (Supreme Court 2010) (reweigh mitigation evidence totality against aggravators)
- Smith v. Dretke, 422 F.3d 269 (5th Cir. 2005) (granting COA when mitigation investigation was unreasonably limited)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (Supreme Court 2011) (evidence not presented to state court generally may be barred)
- Clark v. Thaler, 673 F.3d 410 (5th Cir. 2012) (Pinholster applying to federal review; record-before-state-court standard)
- Trevino v. Thaler, 133 S. Ct. 1911 (Supreme Court 2013) (extends Martinez to Texas procedural default context)
- Moore v. Mitchell, 708 F.3d 760 (6th Cir. 2013) (Martinez applicability when state-law procedures defective)
- Dickens v. Ryan, 740 F.3d 1302 (9th Cir. 2014) (new evidence not altering core claim; Pinholster bar applies)