Smith v. Stephens, Director TDCJ-CID, 3:10-cv-00343

Smith, a Texas pastor, is convicted of sexual assault under §22.011(b)(10) for exploiting a congregant's emotional dependency while acting as spiritual adviser.
Downey testifies she had emotional dependence on Smith and engaged in multiple sexual encounters beginning in 1999, resulting from Smith's manipulation during pastoral counseling.
Evidence includes testimony from additional victims and a psychologist linking emotional dependence to the sexual activity.
Petitioner seeks habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §2254; the district court recommends denial; AEDPA deferential review applies.
The issues include the constitutionality of §22.011(b)(10) and ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel; the state court denial is upheld.
The court denies relief, finding §22.011(b)(10) constitutionally valid and rejecting claims of ineffective assistance under Strickland with AEDPA deference.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Constitutionality of §22.011(b)(10)	Smith argues overbreadth, vagueness, and Establishment Clause violations.	Thaler contends the statute is constitutionally applied; conduct is clearly proscribed and non-void for vagueness; no improper entanglement with religion.	Facially and as applied, §22.011(b)(10) is constitutional; vagueness and Establishment challenges fail.
Ineffective assistance of appellate counsel	Anders brief by appellate counsel deprived Smith of nonfrivolous issues and prejudiced appeal.	No prejudice; claimed issues lacked merit and would not have altered outcome.	No deficient performance or prejudice; appellate counsel's conduct did not violate Strickland.
Ineffective assistance of trial counsel	Counsel failed on several trial matters, including objections to expert testimony and corroboration issues.	Counsel's decisions were sound trial strategy; no deficient performance or prejudice established.	No (prejudicial) ineffective assistance; claims fail under Strickland with AEDPA deference.

Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489 (U.S. 1982) (overbreadth/vagueness framework for facial challenges)
United States v. Clark, 582 F.3d 607 (5th Cir. 2009) (overbreadth/vagueness analysis; First Amendment applicability)
Ferguson v. Estelle, 718 F.2d 730 (5th Cir. 1983) (reiterates standard in facial challenges under §2254)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for sufficiency of evidence review)
Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (U.S. 2011) (AEDPA deference in ineffective assistance claims)
Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (U.S. 2011) (highly deferential review under §2254(d) for state-court decisions)
Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (U.S. 2000) (nonfrivolous-issue inquiry for appellate counsel)