587 F. App'x 805
5th Cir.2014Background
- Miguel Paredes was convicted of capital murder (three victims) in Texas in 2001 and sentenced to death; state courts and an initial federal habeas petition were denied, and certiorari was denied in 2011.
- In October 2014, ten days before his scheduled execution, Paredes filed a Rule 60(b) motion and a stay request in federal district court asserting newly-developed ineffective-assistance/competency and counsel-conflict theories based on later Supreme Court decisions (Martinez, Trevino).
- The district court dismissed parts of the motion for lack of jurisdiction as successive habeas claims, found other parts to be Rule 60(b) claims but untimely and not warranting relief on the merits, denied a stay, and refused a certificate of appealability (COA).
- Paredes appealed to the Fifth Circuit seeking a COA and permission to file a successive § 2244 petition; new counsel pressed (1) a Strickland claim that trial counsel failed to investigate and present mitigation, (2) that state habeas counsel (Gross) was ineffective/allowed an invalid waiver, and (3) that Gross’s dual role created a conflict preventing federal counsel from raising the mitigation claim.
- The Fifth Circuit held (1) the mitigation/ineffective-trial-counsel claim was successive under AEDPA and not saved by Martinez/Trevino (those decisions are nonretroactive and statutory in scope), (2) Paredes’ Rule 60(b) motion was untimely and failed to show the extraordinary circumstances required to reopen final judgment, and (3) even on the merits the newly proffered mitigation evidence did not satisfy Strickland prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Paredes’ Rule 60(b) filings actually present a successive § 2254 habeas petition | The motion seeks relief from a federal judgment and asserts counsel conflict and new Strickland claims excused by Martinez/Trevino | AEDPA bars second or successive claims unless narrow exceptions apply; Martinez/Trevino do not render the claim retroactive constitutional law | Court: The mitigation claim is successive and barred; Martinez/Trevino are not a new retroactive rule of constitutional law for § 2244(b) purposes |
| Whether Rule 60(b)(6) relief is available for the asserted conflict-of-interest (dual-role counsel) claim | Paredes says Gross’s dual role created a structural conflict that undermined the integrity of the federal habeas process and justifies reopening the judgment | State argues the Rule 60(b) motion was untimely, and changes in decisional law (Martinez/Trevino) are not extraordinary circumstances warranting relief | |
| Timeliness and reasonableness of Rule 60(b) motion | Paredes: Martinez/Trevino provided new law; delay excusable until counsel changed and new counsel filed in 2014 | Court/State: Motion filed long after judgment and long after Martinez/Trevino; Rule 60(b) motions based on mistake/excusable neglect must be within 1 year; otherwise must be within a reasonable time and show extraordinary circumstances | |
| Merits of Strickland claim (failure to investigate/present mitigation) | Paredes proffers affidavits alleging family dysfunction, gang background, and childhood head-banging/mental illness not presented at sentencing | State points to substantial aggravating evidence presented at punishment, existing mitigation evidence in the record (TYC records, psychologist, parole officer), and that new evidence is largely cumulative or not competent to show mental illness | Court: Even on de novo review, new evidence does not establish Strickland prejudice; verdict would likely be unchanged |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012) (limited equitable exception to Coleman for ineffective assistance in initial-review collateral proceedings)
- Trevino v. Thaler, 133 S. Ct. 1911 (2013) (applies Martinez in certain Texas procedural contexts)
- Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005) (distinguishes successive habeas petitions from Rule 60(b) motions and discusses extraordinary circumstances)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (no constitutional right to counsel in state collateral proceedings; procedural default rule)
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) (stay factors for injunctive relief including likelihood of success and public interest)