Todd Wessinger v. Darrel Vannoy, Warden
704 F. App'x 309
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Todd Wessinger was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder for a 1995 restaurant shooting; jury found him guilty and sentenced him to death.
- Trial evidence included two eyewitness identifications (Armentor and Ricks), testimony of after-the-fact confessions and sightings of Wessinger with cash, and recovery of the murder weapon and gloves near his home.
- State courts and the district court denied postconviction habeas relief on claims alleging ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) at voir dire and at the guilt phase, and a Brady suppression claim; Wessinger sought certificates of appealability (COA) to appeal those denials.
- The Fifth Circuit reviews state-court merits decisions under AEDPA and applies a doubly-deferential standard to IAC claims (AEDPA + Strickland).
- The court concluded Wessinger failed to make the required substantial showing that reasonable jurists could debate the district court’s denial of relief and denied COAs for all asserted claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voir dire IAC (failure to remove juror who said she would automatically vote death) | Counsel should have struck a juror who initially said she would vote for death automatically after guilty verdict. | Juror’s answers were inconsistent and, after clarification about parole, a reasonable attorney could conclude she might be reluctant to impose death. | COA denied — reasonable jurists would not debate that counsel’s conduct satisfied Strickland under AEDPA. |
| Guilt-phase IAC (failure to prepare/cross-examine witnesses; failure to emphasize lack of physical evidence) | Counsel failed to investigate/interview and effectively cross-examine eyewitnesses and after-the-fact witnesses and failed to highlight no physical evidence tying Wessinger to the crime. | Even if deficient, overwhelming and multi-source evidence of guilt made it not reasonably probable the outcome would differ. | COA denied — state court reasonably concluded no prejudice under Strickland/AEDPA. |
| Brady (suppression of exculpatory statements, 911 call transcript, criminal records, forensic report) | Prosecution withheld favorable material (witness statements, criminal records, plea agreement, report about no fingerprints) that would have undermined credibility and guilt. | While some materials did not reach defense, given the quantity/quality of guilt evidence, the suppressed material was not material under Brady. | COA denied — reasonable jurists would not debate district court’s conclusion that Brady materiality was not shown. |
| COA standard / procedural posture | Wessinger sought permission to appeal denial of habeas claims. | Appeals require a substantial showing that reasonable jurists could disagree (Miller-El standard) and AEDPA deference applies. | COA denied for all claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (exists to define COA substantial-showing standard)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes ineffective-assistance standard)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (describes doubly-deferential AEDPA–Strickland review)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (Brady materiality standard: reasonable probability of different result)
- Miller v. Thaler, 714 F.3d 897 (Fifth Circuit on AEDPA review of state-court decisions)
- Dorsey v. Stephens, 720 F.3d 309 (prejudice standard: likelihood of a different result must be substantial)