Randall Mays v. William Stephens, Director
757 F.3d 211
| 5th Cir. | 2014Background
- In 2007 Randall Mays shot and killed two officers and wounded a third; convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death.
- Trial mitigation evidence included testimony of chronic psychiatric illness, methamphetamine-related neurotoxicity, and history of violent/abusive childhood; jury found future dangerousness and rejected mitigation.
- Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed conviction and sentence; state habeas denied after an evidentiary hearing.
- Mays filed federal habeas raising nine issues; sought a certificate of appealability (COA) on four grounds: ineffective assistance of trial counsel (IAC) for (1) failing to investigate organic brain damage, (2) failing to request a competency hearing, (3) failing to investigate/present intellectual disability, and (4) Eighth Amendment bar on executing the mentally ill.
- The district court denied relief and a COA; Fifth Circuit reviews under AEDPA standards and denies COA on all four grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| IAC — failure to investigate organic brain damage (sentencing) | Mays: counsel failed to timely obtain neuropsych testing of alleged organic brain damage, so mitigation evidence was missing and prejudicial | State: counsel pursued the lead when learned, hired a psychologist, attempted testing but Mays refused to cooperate; evidence later obtained was cumulative | Denied COA — even assuming deficiency, Mays failed to show prejudice; additional exam added little beyond presented mitigation |
| IAC — failure to request competency hearing | Mays: counsel should have sought competency hearing given his mental illness | State: no evidence at hearing that Mays was incompetent; mental illness alone does not establish incompetence under Dusky | Denied COA — no reasonable probability result would differ; state court's finding not unreasonably factual or legal |
| IAC — failure to investigate/present intellectual disability | Mays: should have developed evidence of intellectual disability; Briseno factors unconstitutional under Hall | State: Texas Briseno framework is permissible and Mays presented no adaptive-functioning evidence under Briseno | Denied COA — Hall does not invalidate Briseno; Mays failed to show prejudice or meet Texas standard |
| Eighth Amendment — execution of mentally ill person unconstitutional | Mays: execution violates Eighth Amendment because he is mentally ill and functionally like intellectually disabled | State: Supreme Court precedent does not bar executing mentally ill who are not insane or intellectually disabled; no new controlling authority | Denied COA — Fifth Circuit precedent and Supreme Court decisions do not recognize a categorical ban on executing mentally ill persons |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (overview of COA/AEDPA standards)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-part ineffective assistance standard)
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (prohibition on executing intellectually disabled)
- Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (counsel's duty to investigate mitigating evidence)
- Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (competency standard for trial)
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (juvenile death-penalty rule referenced re: Eighth Amendment analysis)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (deference under AEDPA and review in tandem with Strickland)