Rosendo Rodriguez, III v. Lorie Davis, Director, 693 F. App'x 276

Background

In 2005 Summer Baldwin’s body was found in a suitcase; Rodriguez’s debit-card purchase and surveillance footage tied him to the suitcase and hotel where Baldwin’s blood was found. He later confessed (with counsel Albert present) to killing Baldwin and to a separate murder (Joanna Rogers); both bodies were recovered in suitcases.
Rodriguez was tried in Texas on two capital theories: (1) murder during aggravated sexual assault, and (2) multiple-murder (Baldwin and her unborn child). The jury convicted on both theories and returned a death sentence.
Trial counsel presented a mitigation case including family testimony, a mitigation specialist, and expert consultants; the defense argued consensual sex and self-defense.
Rodriguez pursued state postconviction and federal habeas relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and related constitutional violations; the district court denied relief and refused a COA.
On appeal for a COA, Rodriguez raised four ineffective-assistance-based claims: (A) inadequate mitigation investigation/presentation; (B) confession obtained unconstitutionally and/or through ineffective counsel; (C) failure to object to fetal photographs as irrelevant (post-Roberts change in law); and (D) failure to pursue a “trash compactor” theory for blunt-force injuries (procedurally defaulted). The Fifth Circuit denied the COA.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
A. Adequacy of mitigation investigation/presentation	Rodriguez: counsel failed to investigate family abuse, mental health records, and produce corroborating witnesses — prejudicing penalty phase.	State: counsel retained mitigation specialists, presented family testimony and experts; additional evidence would be cumulative or harmful.	COA denied — reasonable jurists could not debate that state court reasonably applied Strickland; no deficient performance or prejudice.
B. Voluntariness of confession / counsel’s role	Rodriguez: confession not knowing/voluntary because counsel Albert inadequately investigated and thereby effectively denied counsel before/interrogation.	State: Rodriguez insisted on speaking; Albert advised but complied with client’s wishes; strong independent evidence; confession aided defense (self-defense facts).	COA denied — state court reasonably found no Strickland deficiency or prejudice; confession constitutionally obtained.
C. Failure to object to fetal photographs (relevance after Roberts)	Rodriguez: counsel should have objected to relevance of fetal autopsy photos; under Roberts those photos were irrelevant to multiple-murder theory.	State: at trial precedent allowed transferred-intent theory; photos were relevant under then-controlling law; counsel need not anticipate change in law or make futile objections.	COA denied — no reasonable debate that counsel was not deficient for failing to make a then-frivolous relevance objection.
D. Failure to advance trash-compactor theory; procedural default	Rodriguez: counsel should have argued blunt-force injuries could be caused by trash compactor; state habeas counsel’s failure to raise this excuses default under Martinez/Trevino.	State: Martinez exception inapplicable; trash-compactor theory lacked merit, would not explain sexual-assault injuries and would create harmful concessions; extensive state habeas work undermines claim of ineffective habeas counsel.	COA denied — reasonable jurists could not debate that Martinez does not excuse default and that the underlying Strickland claim lacks merit.

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective assistance standard)
Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (narrow exception to procedural default for ineffective-assistance claims in initial-review collateral proceedings)
Trevino v. Thaler, 133 S. Ct. 1911 (applies Martinez in Texas procedural context)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (heightened deference applying Strickland on habeas review)
Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759 (COA standards and limits on habeas-court adjudication)
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (COA standard; jurists of reason could disagree)
Roberts v. State, 273 S.W.3d 322 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (limits transferred-intent use in multiple-murder capital cases)
Escamilla v. Stephens, 749 F.3d 380 (5th Cir. 2014) (example of inadequate mitigation investigation)