William Carl Wooley v. Randy Schaffer
447 S.W.3d 71
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- Wooley, a convicted felon, seeks habeas relief; his convictions were upheld on appeal.
- He alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel regarding suppression of video evidence.
- Wooley’s brother signed a professional services contract with Randy Schaffer for $15,000 plus a $10,000 investigation fee, with Schaffer to file habeas petitions.
- Schaffer filed habeas applications raising the psychologist testimony issue; the district court adopted the master’s findings and denied relief; CCA denied relief.
- Wooley later claimed Schaffer failed to raise the suppression issue and sued Schaffer for malpractice, breach, DTPA, and constitutional rights violations; the trial court dismissed under Rule 91a.
- The court reviews Rule 91a rulings de novo and applies the Peeler doctrine to bar these claims absent exoneration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 91a dismissal was proper for Wa FOley’s claims | Wooley contends claims are viable despite not exonerated, as counsel hired to seek habeas relief. | Schaffer argues Peeler doctrine bars the claims since Wooley is not exonerated. | Rule 91a dismissal affirmed; Peeler barring claims. |
| Whether the Peeler doctrine bars legal-malpractice, contract, and DTPA/constitutional claims | Wooley asserts these claims lie against habeas-counsel and are not barred by Peeler. | Schaffer relies on Peeler to bar claims since Wooley remains convicted and unexonerated. | Claims barred under the Peeler doctrine. |
| Whether the Peeler-based bar extends to breaches of contract and fiduciary duties | Wooley argues such claims are distinct from Peeler’s scope. | Schaffer asserts the doctrine applies to contract and fiduciary claims linked to conviction. | Bar applies; no basis in law or fact. |
| Whether Wooley's action was time-barred or records missing affect ruling | Wooley asserted timeliness and missing records. | Schaffer argued Rule 91a dismissal; records issue irrelevant. | Not reached; ruled unnecessary due to Peeler bar. |
| Whether the live-pleading standard and Rule 91a specificity requirements were satisfied | Wooley argues the motion lacked required specificity for 91a grounds. | Schaffer argued the motion was clear that the claims failed under Peeler. | Rule 91a dismissal affirmed; specificity not reversible given Peeler bar. |
Key Cases Cited
- Peeler v. Hughes & Luce, 909 S.W.2d 494 (Tex. 1995) (Peeler doctrine bars damages absent exoneration)
- GoDaddy.com, LLC v. Toups, 429 S.W.3d 752 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 2014) (de novo review of Rule 91a motions; caution on evidentiary use)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (legal-sufficiency-like standards applied in some contexts)
- Roark v. Allen, 633 S.W.2d 804 (Tex. 1982) (liberal pleading standard for fair notice)
- Futch v. Baker Botts, LLP, 435 S.W.3d 383 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2014) (applies Peeler to fiduciary/duty-related claims in habeas context)
- Johnson v. Odom, 949 S.W.2d 392 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1997) (Peeler-related restrictions on claims tied to conviction)
- Golden v. McNeal, 78 S.W.3d 488 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2002) (Peeler-related application in contract/other claims)
- Worthy v. Scoggin, 2002 WL 31875561 (N.D. Tex. 2002) (attorney-defendant not acting under color of state law)