Tai Preyor v. William Stephens, Director
537 F. App'x 412
5th Cir.2013Background
- Preyor (Black) was convicted and sentenced to death in Texas for the 2004 killing of Jami Tackett; physical and DNA evidence tied him to the crime scene and murder weapon.
- At trial Preyor gave a written statement asserting he went to buy drugs, was attacked, and acted in self-defense; counsel pursued self-defense and lesser-included instructions but Preyor did not testify.
- Jury convicted of capital murder and found future dangerousness; direct appeal affirmed.
- Multiple state habeas applications followed; the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied the initial petition and dismissed later petitions as abusive.
- Preyor filed federal habeas claims alleging ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, denial of the right to testify, and a conflict of interest based on counsel’s social contact with the victim’s stepfather; the district court denied relief and a COA.
- The Fifth Circuit denied a COA, holding Preyor’s claims either procedurally defaulted (and not excused under Martinez/Trevino) or meritless on de novo review (no deficient performance or prejudice).
Issues
| Issue | Preyor's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voir dire on racial bias | Counsel ineffective for not questioning jurors about racial bias given defendant and victim racial difference | No facts showed racial bias or that question was necessary; no per-se rule requires such voir dire | Denied COA — claim conclusory; no substantial showing of deficiency or prejudice |
| Failure to present self-defense evidence / not calling Preyor | Counsel refused to call Preyor though his testimony was essential to self-defense; denial of right to testify | Decision not to call him was strategic; his written statement was before jury; no affidavit showing he asked to testify | Denied COA — allegations conclusory; reasonable strategy not to call him; no reasonable probability of different outcome |
| Inconsistent defense theories | Counsel contradicted opening (suggesting another suspect) and closing (self-defense), undermining effectiveness | Opening and closing were consistent strategic themes (focus on Pointer, then explain events as misidentification/self-defense) | Denied COA — record shows no inconsistent strategy; no deficiency or prejudice |
| Conflict of interest from counsel’s conduct with victim’s stepfather | Socializing/laughing with prosecution witness created conflict and impaired representation | Allegations lack specifics about content, frequency, or prejudice; lead counsel cross-examined the witness | Denied COA — conclusory, no factual showing of conflict or prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (procedural default excused where initial-review state habeas counsel was ineffective for failing to raise trial-ineffectiveness claims)
- Trevino v. Thaler, 569 U.S. 413 (Martinez applies in Texas given state postconviction structure)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (standard for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (procedural default doctrine)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (standard for certificate of appealability)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (deference to reasonable strategic decisions; prejudice standard)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (limits and context for Strickland-related precedent)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (duty to investigate and review under Strickland)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (counsel’s duty to investigate mitigation)
- Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (investigation of available records and materials)
- Ristaino v. Ross, 424 U.S. 589 (no per-se requirement for racial voir dire absent circumstances)
- Ramirez v. Dretke, 398 F.3d 691 (5th Cir.) (COA standards in death penalty cases)