Pleasant v. Lumpkin
19-20664
| 5th Cir. | May 11, 2022Background
- In 2012 Jerome Pleasant shot his fiancée and her 13-year-old daughter, then pointed a gun at police; he was paralyzed after police shot him.
- Pleasant was convicted in 2015 of attempted capital murder and aggravated assault on a public servant and sentenced to life plus 75 years; Connie Williams was his trial counsel.
- Pleasant later filed state habeas applications alleging, among other things, that Williams failed to communicate an 18‑year plea offer; Williams filed an affidavit (March 20, 2018) claiming he had informed Pleasant and Pleasant refused.
- The state trial court found Williams’s affidavit credible and recommended denial; the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied Pleasant’s habeas applications on the trial‑court findings.
- Pleasant filed a federal §2254 petition contesting only the undisclosed‑plea theory; the district court held the claim unexhausted but nonetheless denied it on the merits applying AEDPA deference to the state court findings.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed that the claim was unexhausted, held the district court erred by applying AEDPA deference to a claim not adjudicated on the merits in state court, vacated the merits dismissal, and remanded for further proceedings (including determination of procedural default).
Issues
| Issue | Pleasant's Argument | Lumpkin's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exhaustion of plea‑offer IAC claim | He fairly presented the claim to state courts (filed affidavits in the CCA). | Claim is unexhausted because new evidence was first offered in the CCA and Texas Rule 73.7 required a stay and filing in trial court. | Claim unexhausted. |
| Applicability of AEDPA deference | District court may defer to state trial‑court findings when denying habeas on the merits. | Deference not owed where state courts did not adjudicate the specific claim on the merits. | District court erred to apply AEDPA deference; unadjudicated claims require plenary review. |
| Merits of ineffective assistance (failure to convey plea) | Williams did not inform Pleasant of the 18‑year offer; Pleasant was prejudiced and would have accepted. | Williams’s affidavit shows he told Pleasant and Pleasant refused; no prejudice. | Merits dismissal vacated; remand for proper review (plenary if unadjudicated) and further fact‑finding. |
| Procedural default | Not procedurally defaulted. | State argued default may apply. | Fifth Circuit remanded and directed district court to determine whether claim is otherwise procedurally defaulted before reaching merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑part ineffective assistance standard)
- Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685 (AEDPA review of state‑court application of Strickland)
- Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27 (requirement to fairly present federal claims to state courts)
- Gonzales v. Thaler, 643 F.3d 425 (5th Cir.) (no AEDPA deference when claim not adjudicated on the merits in state court)
- Henderson v. Cockrell, 333 F.3d 592 (5th Cir.) (same principle on review standard for unadjudicated claims)
- Kittelson v. Dretke, 426 F.3d 306 (5th Cir.) (exhaustion and fair‑presentation principles)
- Austin v. Davis, 876 F.3d 757 (5th Cir.) (deference to state‑court factual findings under §2254(e)(1))
- Ex parte Speckman, 537 S.W.3d 49 (Tex. Crim. App.) (Texas Rule 73.7 procedure for filing new evidence in habeas)