Lucas Roddy v. Darrel Vannoy, Warden
671 F. App'x 295
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Lucas J. Roddy, a Louisiana prisoner, was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.
- Roddy filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition; the district court denied relief but granted a certificate of appealability (COA) on one claim: denial of the right to testify.
- Roddy contended his counsel advised him not to testify based on mistaken belief juvenile records could be used against him, so his waiver was not knowing; he claimed only his testimony could rebut prosecution witnesses and show his mental state.
- The record showed Roddy acquiesced to counsel’s advice, and counsel’s concern about juvenile records was arguably mistaken under Louisiana Evid. Code Art. 609.1F.
- The court assumed deficient performance for purposes of analysis but found the evidence against Roddy overwhelming and held Roddy failed to show Strickland prejudice (no reasonable probability outcome would differ).
- Roddy sought to expand the COA to two additional ineffective-assistance claims (failure to seek DNA testing of clothing from a barbecue pit; failure to investigate/call an alibi witness); the court denied expansion for failure to make the COA showing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel’s advice not to testify violated Roddy’s constitutional right to testify (ineffective assistance) | Roddy: counsel misadvised him (fear juvenile record use), so his waiver wasn’t knowing; only his testimony could rebut prosecution and show mental state | State: Roddy acquiesced to counsel’s advice; counsel’s tactical decision and any juvenile-record concern did not make waiver involuntary | Court assumed deficient performance but held no Strickland prejudice because evidence against Roddy was overwhelming; claim fails |
| Whether AEDPA deference applies to the prejudice prong here | Roddy: urges review for prejudice (de novo) because state court did not address prejudice | State: generally AEDPA deference applies where state court decided on merits | Court reviewed prejudice de novo (state court addressed only performance); still found no reasonable probability of different outcome |
| Whether COA should be expanded to include failure to seek DNA testing (ineffective assistance) | Roddy: counsel should have sought DNA testing of clothing found in pit; such testing might show innocence | State: petitioner provided no evidence of what DNA would show; no prejudice shown | COA not expanded — petitioner failed to show substantial showing of denial of constitutional right for this claim |
| Whether COA should be expanded to include failure to investigate/call alibi witness Michael Blair | Roddy: counsel failed to interview and call an alibi witness whose testimony could exculpate him | State: district court rejected claim on prejudice; AEDPA deference applies to that resolution | COA not expanded — Roddy did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would debate the district court’s prejudice ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 (defendant has constitutional right to testify)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (AEDPA deference not applied when state court addressed only one Strickland prong)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (standard for issuing a COA; whether reasonable jurists could debate district court’s assessment)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (COA requires overview and general assessment of habeas claims)
- Ortiz v. Quarterman, 504 F.3d 492 (standards for § 2254 review in the Fifth Circuit)
- Sayre v. Anderson, 238 F.3d 631 (discussing prejudice analysis under Strickland in the Fifth Circuit)
- Mays v. Stephens, 757 F.3d 211 (reviewing ineffective-assistance claims de novo where state court did not address merits)