Parr v. Thaler
481 F. App'x 872
5th Cir.2012Background
- Parr was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death for the robbery-turned-killing of Joel Dominguez in Waco, Texas, following a confrontation at a B & G Convenience store.
- Parr and his associate Whiteside forced Dominguez and Chavez to walk to a fenced area; Parr pistol-whipped Dominguez and Whiteside shot Chavez; Parr then shot Dominguez in the head, killing him.
- At punishment, the state presented evidence of an escalating pattern of lawlessness and Parr’s alleged lack of remorse, along with unadjudicated related offenses including a murder and a drive-by shooting.
- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Parr’s conviction and sentence; Parr later pursued state habeas relief, then federal habeas relief, which the district court denied.
- Parr sought a certificate of appealability (COA) from the Fifth Circuit, which denied the COA after review of state and district court decisions.
- The issues on appeal encompassed ineffective assistance of counsel regarding juror Sanders, dismissal of a vacillating juror Garret, mitigating and sentencing instructions, the Texas 12-10 rule, and unadjudicated extraneous offenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance for juror Sanders | Parr argues counsel failed to override Parr's instruction to seat Sanders. | Parr’s counsel properly followed the client’s clear instruction; no prejudice shown. | COA denied; Strickland not satisfied; no 6th Amendment error. |
| Vacillating juror Garret dismissed for cause | Garret’s dismissal violated rights by excluding a potentially impartial juror. | Record supports the district court that Garret’s views impaired impartiality. | COA denied; state court finding not unreasonable. |
| Mitigating instructions and fully evaluating mitigating evidence | Texas instructions prevented independent weighting of mitigating evidence. | Instructions sufficiently allowed consideration of mitigating evidence under applicable standards. | COA denied; Scheanette approach controlling; no reasonable disagreement. |
| Definition of vague terms in punishment phase: 'probability,' 'criminal acts of violence,' 'society' | Terms are unconstitutionally vague and fail to guide determinative weighting. | Terms are not unconstitutionally vague in this context and are properly understood. | COA denied; district court decision upheld. |
| Texas 12-10 rule unconstitutional | Rule misleads jurors by diminishing individual votes’ meaning. | Rule consistent with Fifth Circuit precedent and Teague; not unconstitutional. | COA denied; rule upheld; no error significant enough to merits review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (ineffective assistance test; two-prong standard)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (substantial showing for COA; deferential review under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d))
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (right to self-representation)
- Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (1985) (bias determinations and credibility in voir dire)
- Drew v. Collins, 964 F.2d 411 (1992) (cause challenges and juror impartiality standard)
- Turner v. Quarterman, 481 F.3d 292 (2007) (definition and vagueness of terms related to sentencing)
- Penry v. Johnson, 532 U.S. 782 (2001) (mitigation special issue; weighing mitigating evidence)
- Scheanette v. Quarterman, 482 F.3d 815 (2007) (mitigation instructions and right to consider all mitigating evidence)
- Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367 (1988) (guarantees around jury unanimity and mitigating evidence; Teague considerations)
- McKoy v. North Carolina, 110 S. Ct. 1227 (1990) (mitigation and jury instruction standards)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (teague limits on new constitutional rules)
- Adanandus v. State, 866 S.W.2d 210 (Tex.Crim.App.1993) (beyond-reasonable-doubt burden at punishment phase; admissibility of extraneous offenses)
- Hughes v. Dretke, 412 F.3d 582 (5th Cir.2005) (12-10 rule due process considerations)
- Brown v. Dretke, 419 F.3d 296 (5th Cir.2005) (extraneous unadjudicated offenses evidence at punishment)
- Turner v. Quarterman, 481 F.3d 292 (2007) (vagueness and guidance in sentencing terms)