Rodolfo Gomez v. Rick Thaler, Director, 526 F. App'x 355

Gomez challenged suppression warrant proceedings, arguing the affiant lied or lacked reliability and trustworthiness of a CI.
Gomez and his siblings were separately represented at a joint suppression hearing; defense counsel contemplated substitute appearances.
Two subsequent suppression hearings occurred with counsel absence for Gomez; testimony included a CI and officers, yet the court overruled the motion.
Gomez was convicted in 2005 of organized criminal activity and sentenced to 60 years; state appellate avenues were exhausted.
Gomez filed state habeas petition arguing denial of counsel at a critical stage under Cronic; the Texas courts denied relief.
District court and Fifth Circuit denied federal habeas relief, applying AEDPA deference and concluding no unreasonable application of Cronic.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of counsel at continued suppression hearings was a critical stage under Cronic	Gomez: absence violated Cronic’s critical-stage rule.	Department: absence was voluntary, non-critical, and not prejudicial; other counsel present mitigated it.	No unreasonable application; district court affirmed.

Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984) (presumption of prejudice in complete denial of counsel at a critical stage)
Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175 (2004) (presumption of prejudice where circumstances are likely to prejudice the defense)
Wright v. Van Patten, 552 U.S. 120 (2008) (standard for applying clearly established federal law in AEDPA review)
Carey v. Musladin, 549 U.S. 70 (2006) (clarifies clearly established law in equality of summary review contexts)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (defines clearly established federal law for AEDPA review)
Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (2011) (highly deferential AEDPA standard; fairminded jurists could disagree)
Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (limits on creating new rules in habeas corpus challenges)