Texidor v. Folino
4:10-cv-01884
| M.D. Penn. | Jun 8, 2011Background
- Texidor and Flores perpetrated a January 10, 2004 home invasion in Shenandoah, PA, during which Gearhart was bound and threatened with a handgun.
- Texidor grabbed Gearhart, placed her in a headlock, and threatened to shoot; accomplices restrained others and searched the residence.
- Trial evidence showed Texidor and Flores committed aggravated assault (Gearhart, Winkler, Pribish) and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (Winkler, Pribish).
- The jury convicted Texidor of multiple counts including three counts of aggravated assault and three counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon; he was sentenced to 198 to 396 months.
- Texidor challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for the aggravated assault convictions and the deadly-weapon aggravation; Superior Court rejected the claims, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied review.
- Texidor then filed this federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, arguing constitutional insufficiency of the evidence and related AEDPA standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for aggravated assault (Gearhart) | Texidor contends insufficient evidence under Jackson v. Virginia. | Folino asserts enough circumstantial and direct evidence supported the conviction. | No; evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution supported the conviction. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for aggravated assault with deadly weapon (Winkler and Pribish) | Texidor argues insufficiency for deadly-weapon aggravated assault as to Winkler and Pribish. | Folino argues the record supports the deadly-weapon aggravated assault convictions. | No; the record, when viewed collectively, supports the convictions for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon as to Winkler and Pribish. |
| AEDPA review standard and exhaustion | Texidor asserts state court decisions were unreasonable applications of federal law. | Folino argues proper deference under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) and full exhaustion. | The petition was properly analyzed under AEDPA with deference; no relief warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (sufficiency of evidence standard for criminal conviction reviewed on habeas)
- In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (U.S. 1970) (due process; standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (U.S. 2000) (contrary/unreasonable application deference framework under AEDPA)
- Waddington v. Sarausad, 555 U.S. 179 (U.S. 2009) (unreasonable application standard must be objectively unreasonable)
- Appel v. Horn, 250 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2001) (objective reasonableness in applying federal law to facts)
- Commonwealth v. Matthew, 909 A.2d 1254 (Pa. 2006) (Pa. Supreme Court on aggravated assault elements and intent)
- Commonwealth v. Davido, 868 A.2d 431 (Pa. 2005) (circumstantial evidence sufficient to convict)