William Speer v. William Stephens, Director
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 5122
| 5th Cir. | 2015Background
- Petitioner Speer, in a federal habeas case, moved for his federal habeas counsel (who had also represented him in state habeas proceedings) to withdraw and requested appointment of new counsel to evaluate whether Martinez/Trevino relief might apply.
- Martinez v. Ryan and Trevino v. Thaler establish a narrow equitable exception excusing procedural defaults of ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claims when state habeas counsel was constitutionally ineffective.
- Current federal counsel argued a conflict because he would have to evaluate his own prior performance in state collateral proceedings.
- The panel concluded Martinez/Trevino do not create a constitutional right to counsel on collateral review nor automatically require replacement counsel; they only permit federal courts to consider otherwise-defaulted claims when state habeas counsel was ineffective.
- Exercising statutory authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3599, the court appointed limited supplemental counsel (without allowing current counsel to withdraw) solely to determine whether additional ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claims exist that should be pursued under Martinez/Trevino.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Martinez/Trevino require appointment of new federal counsel when federal counsel previously represented petitioner in state habeas | Speer: his current counsel is conflicted; new counsel is needed to fairly investigate Martinez/Trevino claims | Respondent (and court view): Martinez/Trevino do not create a right to new counsel on collateral review and do not automatically require replacement | Court: Martinez/Trevino do not mandate new counsel, but court may appoint supplemental counsel under statutory authority to investigate potential claims |
| Whether existing counsel must be allowed to withdraw because of conflict in evaluating his own prior performance | Speer: withdrawal necessary because of inherent conflict | Respondent: conflict does not prevent counsel from litigating the substantive trial-ineffectiveness claim | Court: denied withdrawal; any alleged conflict cured by appointment of limited supplemental counsel |
| Scope of authority to appoint additional counsel in federal habeas capital cases | Speer: seeks appointment as remedy for possible state habeas ineffectiveness | Respondent: statutory appointment is discretionary and limited | Court: 18 U.S.C. § 3599 permits appointment of one or more attorneys; exercised discretion to appoint supplemental counsel for limited investigatory purpose |
| How to proceed on unraised ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claims | Speer: wants a fresh search for such claims to potentially excuse procedural default | Respondent: new claims must be resolved by district court and may be barred by AEDPA | Court: remanded to district court to appoint supplemental counsel and to determine in the first instance whether Martinez/Trevino cause exists and whether any claims merit relief; retained and stayed remaining appellate jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012) (limited equitable exception to procedural-default rule for ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claims when state habeas counsel was ineffective)
- Trevino v. Thaler, 569 U.S. 413 (2013) (applying Martinez exception in broader contexts where state collateral system practicably prevents adjudication)
- Mendoza v. Stephens, 783 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2015) (concurring discussion supporting appointment of additional counsel in similar circumstances)