McAfee v. Thaler
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 287
5th Cir.2011Background
- McAfee was convicted in Texas state court of aggravated robbery and sentenced to 28 years.
- He sought habeas relief in federal court; the Fifth Circuit granted a COA on two issues.
- Issue 1: whether trial counsel was ineffective at the motion-for-new-trial hearing; Issue 2: whether denial of a fair hearing occurred by delaying dismissal of counsel until after the hearing.
- McAfee moved to dismiss his court-appointed counsel before the motion-for-new-trial hearing; the court denied ruling on the motion prior to the hearing.
- During the motion-for-new-trial, defense counsel Donahue aggressively defended his representation, interrupted McAfee, and the court admonished him; Donahue purportedly had an actual conflict of interest.
- State habeas proceedings included affidavits from supposed alibi witnesses (Jones and Ruiz) submitted after the hearing; the state court denied relief, and Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied without written order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right to counsel at motion for new trial | McAfee argues he had a Sixth Amendment right to counsel at the post-trial motion stage. | Thaler contends the right attaches only at trial, not at post-trial motions. | There is a Sixth Amendment right to counsel at the motion-for-new-trial stage in Texas. |
| Ineffective assistance at motion-for-new-trial hearing | Donahue's conduct deprived McAfee of effective assistance and created an actual conflict of interest. | State court found counsel’s performance reasonably effective. | Donahue’s conduct was deficient and prejudicial; state court unreasonably applied Strickland. |
| Prejudice under Strickland at AEDPA review | Absent Donahue’s deficiencies, the outcome would have differed; alibi witnesses would have changed trial dynamics. | Record shows no reasonable probability the result would differ; affidavits post-hearing do not establish alibi at 5:20 A.M. | No reasonable probability the outcome would differ; AEDPA deference maintained the denial. |
| Fairness of hearing when counsel was not dismissed pre-hearing | Failure to dismiss Donahue before the hearing compromised the fairness of the motion-for-new-trial proceeding. | Hearing conduct did not deny a fundamentally fair trial; ruling within procedural bounds. | No prejudice; due process not violated; no entitlement to reversal on this basis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1961) (critical stage determination based on case-specific facts)
- Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682 (U.S. 1972) (right to counsel attaches when adversary proceedings initiated)
- Ash v. United States, 413 U.S. 300 (U.S. 1973) (right to counsel for aid in coping with legal problems)
- Rhay v. McRae (Rhay), 389 U.S. 128 (U.S. 1967) (pre-trial conditions affecting substantial rights and counsel)
- U.S. v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1967) (pre-trial lineups and confrontation rights context for counsel)
- White v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 59 (U.S. 1963) (preliminary proceedings and right to counsel contexts)
- Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 (U.S. 1963) (appeals process and counsel during transition)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (U.S. 1989) (analysis of new constitutional rules and Teague, non-retroactivity caution)
- Ex parte McAfee, 2007, Tex.Crim.App. 2007 (Texas) (state court findings on counsel effectiveness and denial of relief)
- Cooks v. State, 240 S.W.3d 906 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007) (motion for new trial is a critical stage; need for counsel)