Trevino v. Thaler
133 S. Ct. 1911
| SCOTUS | 2013Background
- Trevino was convicted of capital murder in Texas and sentenced to death after the jury found insufficient mitigating circumstances.
- New counsel handled Trevino’s direct appeal and did not raise an ineffective-assistance claim against trial counsel during the penalty phase.
- A later state-collateral proceeding was pursued, but Trevino did not raise the claimed trial-counsel ineffectiveness for failing to develop mitigating evidence at that stage.
- Federal habeas proceedings were stayed to permit state court review, where Trevino’s claim was defaulted for failing to raise it in the initial state postconviction proceeding.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed, relying on Coleman and pre-Martinez logic, and noted Ibarra v. Thaler suggested Martinez would not apply in Texas.
- The Supreme Court held that Martinez’s exception applies in Texas because the state framework makes a meaningful direct-appeal opportunity to raise the claim highly unlikely, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Martinez apply to Texas? | Trevino argues Martinez’s cause exception should excuse default. | Thaler argues Martinez does not apply since Texas may permit direct-appeal raising. | Yes; Martinez applies and excuses the default in Texas. |
| Does Texas’ structure provide a meaningful opportunity to raise IAC on direct appeal? | Texas structure makes direct-appeal IAC claims virtually unworkable. | Texas permits direct-appeal IAC claims in theory; practice is adequate. | No; in practice it does not provide a meaningful opportunity. |
| What is the remedy for Trevino’s default in light of Martinez? | Martinez permits federal review of substantial IAC claims when default is excused. | State courts should decide the merits first, per Coleman and subsequent principles. | Remand to allow state courts to determine the merits consistent with Martinez. |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U. S. 1 (2012) (establishes narrow cause-exception to Coleman for deficient state collateral review)
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U. S. 722 (1991) (general rule: independent state ground; exception for cause and prejudice)
- Massaro v. United States, 538 U. S. 500 (2003) (supports consideration of counsel ineffectiveness in collateral context)
- Robinson v. State, 16 S. W. 3d 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (Texas procedural reality makes direct-review IAC claims impractical)
- Reyes v. State, 849 S. W. 2d 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (illustrates limitations of developing record on appeal)