Moises Mendoza v. William Stephens, Director
783 F.3d 203
| 5th Cir. | 2015Background
- Mendoza was convicted of capital murder in Texas (2005) and sentenced to death; state conviction and sentence affirmed on direct appeal.
- Lydia Brandt served as Mendoza’s state habeas counsel and was later appointed as his sole federal habeas counsel; Mendoza’s federal petition raised seven claims including five IATC (ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel) claims.
- The district court denied habeas relief and declined an evidentiary hearing; a COA was granted as to Mendoza’s first four IATC claims and Mendoza appealed.
- After Mendoza filed his opening brief, the Supreme Court decided Trevino (applying Martinez to Texas), prompting Mendoza to seek appointment of supplemental, conflict-free counsel to investigate Martinez/Trevino-based IATC claims that Brandt might have failed to raise as state habeas counsel.
- The Fifth Circuit panel (concurring opinion by Judge Owen) granted the motion to appoint supplemental counsel, remanded to the district court to appoint counsel under 18 U.S.C. § 3599, and stayed the appeal pending the district court’s review.
- Court reasoned that Brandt’s dual role created an apparent conflict: she might be unwilling or unable to investigate or argue her own alleged ineffectiveness, and Martel/Christeson jurisprudence supports appointment of new counsel where such conflicts could impede zealous, independent representation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether supplemental (conflict-free) counsel should be appointed under § 3599 | Brandt’s dual role creates a conflict; Mendoza needs independent counsel to investigate missed IATC claims post-Trevino | State: Brandt is a functioning, effective lawyer; no need to replace counsel absent actual denial of counsel | Court: Grant remand to appoint supplemental counsel under the “in the interests of justice” standard from Martel; stay appeal |
| Whether Trevino/Martinez excuse procedural default for IATC claims and warrant further investigation | Mendoza seeks remand so new counsel can determine whether Martinez/Trevino provide cause to excuse defaults and whether claims merit relief | State argues Mendoza hasn’t identified specific missed claims and thus appointment is unwarranted | Court: Remanded to district court to consider in first instance whether petitioner can establish Martinez/Trevino cause and if claims merit relief (appointment to facilitate this) |
| Timeliness / waiver of motion for new counsel after Trevino | Mendoza filed motion 65 days after Trevino; not at fault due to prior Fifth Circuit precedent and evolving law | State contends motion was untimely/waived and should have been raised earlier | Court: Delay not forfeiture given prior binding Fifth Circuit precedent; Trevino changed controlling law and retroactivity favors remand |
| Futility of appointing new counsel | Mendoza argues possible substantial claims may exist but investigation needed | State argues substitute counsel’s motion would be futile absent identified substantial claims | Court: Appointment appropriate unless it is plain any subsequent motion would be futile; State has not shown futility |
Key Cases Cited
- Martel v. Clair, 132 S. Ct. 1276 (2012) (adopts “in the interests of justice” standard for substitution under § 3599)
- Christeson v. Roper, 135 S. Ct. 891 (2015) (counsel must be replaced where attorney’s interest in reputation conflicts with duty to raise claims of counsel’s own ineffectiveness)
- Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012) (ineffective assistance of state post-conviction counsel can establish cause to excuse procedural default of IATC claims)
- Trevino v. Thaler, 133 S. Ct. 1911 (2013) (applies Martinez to Texas habeas proceedings)
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (attorney errors in post-conviction proceedings generally do not constitute cause to excuse procedural default)