Seghelmeble v. Davis, Director TDCJ-CID, 3:14-cv-04377

Petitioner Juan Seghelmeble stabbed and killed Gladys Reyes; arrested at the scene and later convicted of murder and sentenced to life (conviction affirmed on direct appeal and state habeas denied).
Pretrial competency was contested: multiple competency hearings between 2008–2011 with conflicting expert opinions (Dr. Pittman diagnosing paranoid schizophrenia; Dr. Compton finding competency); jury ultimately found him competent after a competency trial.
Procedurally, Petitioner filed state habeas relief (denied on trial-court findings) then a federal §2254 petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel (several variants), incompetency to stand trial, and denial of right to testify.
The magistrate judge addressed exhaustion/ procedural-default: some claims were not presented to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and thus were procedurally barred absent cause and prejudice or a miscarriage-of-justice showing.
On the merits where adjudicated, the court applied AEDPA deference and Strickland standards and concluded counsel was not ineffective (insanity defense investigation was pursued and experts did not support legal insanity; failure-to-inform claim was conclusory), and that petitioner failed to overcome procedural bars for other claims. Recommendation: deny §2254 petition with prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance — counsel failed to advise re: case/outcomes	Seghelmeble says counsel did not inform him about case consequences or advise him adequately	Respondent/record: claim is conclusory; no specifics showing deficient performance or prejudice	Denied — conclusory; no showing how lack of information altered outcome
Ineffective assistance — failure to raise insanity defense	Counsel failed to pursue/raise insanity at trial	Counsel retained expert (Dr. Lisa Clayton) who concluded she could not testify Petitioner was insane; no evidence Petitioner was legally insane	Denied — investigation undertaken; no evidence of legal insanity; no Strickland prejudice shown
Competency to stand trial	Seghelmeble contends he was incompetent during trial	State found claim was barred in state habeas as relitigation; no cause or new reliable evidence of actual innocence	Procedurally barred — petitioner failed to overcome default; federal review barred
Denial of right to testify / counsel collusion with court	Petitioner claims counsel prevented him testifying and colluded with court	Not raised to highest state court; procedurally defaulted	Procedurally barred — not exhausted and no excuse shown

Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (procedural-default doctrine and exhaustion)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance standard)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (AEDPA standards for "contrary to" and "unreasonable application")
Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995) (actual-innocence gateway to review)
Crane v. Johnson, 178 F.3d 309 (5th Cir. 1999) (prejudice standard under Strickland in sentencing context)
Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364 (1993) (prejudice must render proceedings fundamentally unfair or unreliable)