Terry Trentacosta v. Lorie Davis, Director
19-50222
| 5th Cir. | Oct 25, 2019Background
- Trentacosta, a Texas prisoner, was convicted by a jury of five counts of aggravated sexual assault and two counts of indecency with a child and sentenced to 60 years’ imprisonment.
- He filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 years after the statute of limitations had run; the district court dismissed the petition as untimely in January 2019.
- Trentacosta sought equitable tolling based on a claim of actual innocence and asked for an evidentiary hearing to develop new evidence tied to an ineffective-assistance claim; the district court denied relief and later denied a Rule 59(e) motion to alter the judgment.
- He submitted affidavits intended to impeach the victim’s credibility and show a motive to lie; he argued this evidence excused the untimeliness and warranted an evidentiary hearing.
- The Fifth Circuit found the proffered affidavits did not constitute the new, reliable evidence required to meet the actual-innocence (Schlup) gateway, noted the victim’s testimony was corroborated by physical evidence, and denied a certificate of appealability (COA) while affirming denial of an evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether actual innocence tolled AEDPA's statute of limitations | Trentacosta: affidavits and new evidence show actual innocence, so limitations should be tolled | District/state: evidence is conclusory and insufficiently reliable to meet Schlup gateway | Denied — evidence insufficient; no tolling |
| Whether proffered affidavits constitute "new, reliable" evidence under Schlup | Trentacosta: affidavits impeach victim credibility and reveal motive to lie | Respondent: affidavits are conclusory and do not overcome corroborating physical evidence | Denied — affidavits do not satisfy Schlup's standard |
| Whether an evidentiary hearing was required to develop the actual-innocence claim | Trentacosta: hearing necessary to test and develop his new-evidence claim | District: no reasonable likelihood that additional evidence would change outcome; hearing unnecessary | Denied — no abuse of discretion in refusing a hearing |
| Whether the district court erred in denying Rule 59(e) motion | Trentacosta: Rule 59(e) reasserted entitlement to a hearing and tolling | District: motion merely rehashes the same conclusory claims; no basis to alter judgment | Denied — motion properly denied |
Key Cases Cited
- McQuiggin v. Perkins, [citation="569 U.S. 383"] (2013) (actual-innocence gateway can excuse AEDPA timeliness bar)
- Schlup v. Delo, [citation="513 U.S. 298"] (1995) (standard for "actual innocence" gateway: new, reliable evidence such that no reasonable juror would convict)
- Slack v. McDaniel, [citation="529 U.S. 473"] (2000) (certificate of appealability standards when reasonable jurists could debate procedural rulings)
- Norman v. Stephens, [citation="817 F.3d 226"] (5th Cir. 2016) (no COA requirement for appeals from denial of evidentiary hearings; treated as direct appeal)