Williams v. Quarterman

JOLLY, Before BARKSDALE and HAYNES, Judges. Circuit HAYNES, Judge: Circuit appeals Nanon the denial of petition his habeas under 28 U.S.C. (2006), capital § 2254 following his murder conviction in court. Texas state For the below, reasons forth set REVERSE and REMAND to the district court for a evidentiary hearing full on the ineffective assistance of counsel claims on which the Appealability granted. Certificate of I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND A. The Murder Trial jury convicted capital murder and sentenced him to “Xavier,” park, at the but present were underlying Williams’s as The facts death.1 only potential eyewitnesses but we can discern to the disputed, conviction are (the the state deceased), outline of those facts from a basic Ra- shooting were Collier Williams, 13, 1992, May record. On sul, Guevara, did and Williams. Williams Guevara, and Guevara’s his friend Vaal Thus, testify. only eyewitness the tes- Winn, to Adonius Col- Elaine went friend timony from Rasul and Gue- at trial came arrange drug transac- apartment lier’s to vara. Rasul, Collier, friend Ammade tion. his that after Williams shot Rasul testified girlfriend, Stephanie and Rasul’s him, running, he ran. Rasul heard While Guevara, Anderson, Williams, met with the including, apparently, more shots shot They agreed complete to the and Winn. Rasul ran before to his foot. Because nearby partici- park. at a The transaction shot, stayed Guevara Collier was while in several vehi- pants park all went to the behind, credibility story and its Guevera’s alleged at trial that The Government cles. initially very important. pistol and a were Guevara carried a .25-caliber clothing gun in while at all. shotgun hidden his Gue- that he did not fire his testified pistol. Upon Later, carried a .22-caliber vara that he fired his Guevara testified Williams, Guevara, arriving park, at the in of Collier but did not gun the direction Rasul, to went into the woods and Collier him. then testified that he strike Guevara drug the transaction. The re- conduct ran after Rasul. He stated that he never stayed the cars. maining participants Collier, actually saw shoot but he feet shotgun heard fire and saw Collier’s drug During the course of the transac- tion, twitching. Rasul also said that he gunfire erupted. testified Guevara him once in the face with the say Williams shot “no more witnesses” heard Williams a bullet wound pistol and he suffered shotgun fire. hearing before the parking in the foot he ran toward the as “objective” in the case con- The evidence testimony proffered at trial lot. Forensic testimony am- expert about the sisted linked the bullet from Rasul’s foot to munition recovered from Collier’s head pistol. Rasul and .25-caliber Williams’s and the cause of Collier’s death. The as- attention for sought Anderson medical Ra- medical examiner for Harris Coun- sistant injuries, reported and Anderson the sul’s Brown, ty, performed autopsy. Dr. the shooting police a Houston officer. shotgun pel- Dr. Brown testified that the Thereafter, investigated the police the lets killed Collier and Collier was still body. dead park and found Collier’s Col- shotgun. alive when shot with the He shotgun lier had suffered a wound to the based this conclusion on the fact that there per- head. The medical examiners who margin was a red around Collier’s bullet autopsy formed recovered some Collier’s Brown, According wound. to Dr. this red from cranial cavi- shotgun pellets Collier’s margin pressure indicated blood at bullet, mutilated which ty spent Dr. Winn, Anderson, time the wound was inflicted. Brown “EB-1.”2 was marked as only any during evidence of “EB-1” person, and another identified at trial did not find 574-75, Supreme id. at 125 Following the United States of the instant offense. See 1. Simmons, Roper S.Ct. 1183. Court's decision in 543 1183, L.Ed.2d 1 U.S. 125 S.Ct. (2005), Although x-ray district commuted the cranial did not reveal "EB-1,” prison apparently to life in because came from Collier's Williams's sentence age eighteen at time head. he was under the autopsy proceedings, and could not account its tion with the habeas the state but he admitted Collier presence, trial court ordered the release of Gue- have been shot with a bullet before could pistol vara’s .22-caliber and the ballistics shotgun shotgun blast and that evidence. Before turning that evidence then obliterated evidence blast could have over, the County Harris District Attor- prior of a bullet wound. ney’s Office retested the ballistics evi- police other was a Houston expert The doing, dence. so it determined that criminalist, Baldwin, department Robert had, fact, “EB-1” been fired Gue- specifically who testified that the “EB-1” pistol vara’s .22-caliber direct contra- pistol came from a like bullet .25-caliber diction to testimony. Baldwin’s trial claimed the one witnesses Williams had Williams used this information as a foun- pistol carried and not from .22-caliber dation for several claims in his habeas carrying. like the one Guevara admitted to proceeding. Because the Certificate of Baldwin admitted that he failed to test fire Appealability granted only on the inef- pistols, unequivocally but testified that claims,3 fective assistance of counsel analysis his was correct. only focus on the evidence as it relates to counsel, Williams’s trial Loretta Mul- those issues. drow, sought independent never an ballis- independent autopsy tics test or an or In the state habeas proceeding, Williams pathology report. examination of presented Baldwin’s recantation of his trial learning Even after had not Baldwin testimony. Baldwin admitted that pistols test fired the in examination of his “EB-1” bullet came from gun. Guevara’s evidence, the ballistics Muldrow still did recantation, complement To Baldwin’s request a continuance to have an in- presented Williams also an affidavit from dependent expert further examine this Singer, Criminologist Ronald Chief with Consequently, evidence. Baldwin’s unre- County the Tarrant Medical Examiner’s testimony gave butted buttressed Office,whom to indepen- Williams retained credibility testimony to Guevara’s that he dently test Singer the ballistics evidence. Indeed, through- was not Collier’s killer. opined that Collier had suffered two case, notably closing out the State’s ar- head, inflicted by wounds to the one a .22- gument, prosecutor made much of the weapon by caliber and one inflicted shot- jury fact that the did not need to decide gun. According Singer, shotgun to which shot killed Collier because the ob- wound could have obliterated the smaller jective evidence showed that all shots wound if in- the smaller wound had been came from firearms attributable Singer flicted first. further that the stated Williams, not to Guevara. bullet recovered from foot had not Rasul’s B. Proceeding The State Habeas been fired the same “EB- weapon from as that, opined damaged 1.” He even its direct appeal,

On Williams’s conviction state, and sentence were affirmed. In connee- “EB-1” and the .25-caliber bullet independent 3. The district court considered this case a counsel’s failure to secure foren- Thus, question. evidence, close while the court denied testing sic and failure to secure relief, granted Appealabili- the Certificate of pathologist, the assistance of a as well as Peti- ty on those "Strickland claims based on the tioner’s Strickland claim based on cumulative EB-1,” specifically, true caliber of “Petition- Appellant’s request We error.” denied involving er's ineffective-assistance claims tri- grounds additional be included in the Certifi- independent al counsel’s failure to obtain Appealability. cate of testing handgun, of Guevara’s .22-caliber granted an eviden- easily The state trial court were distin- from Rasul’s foot taken consistent- tiary hearing. Singer the aid of a testified with guishable, particularly indicated Singer believed affidavit. Muldrow microscope. ly with his comparison theory should have competent examiner viewed the some that she had the difference problem discerning him as a had no and killed one else shot Collier testimony “at best Baldwin’s trial defense, and that unsupported but one viable on his carelessness demonstrates extreme that her at trial. admitted evidence She question into his and at worst calls part independent ballistics not to seek decision re- to Baldwin’s expertise.” addition one, rath- strategic not a but evidence was testimony, Singer’s cantation and faulty assumption that one on the er based jurors stat- affidavits from two presented job. Mul- adequate done an the state had differently they have voted ing that would accurate even with drow conceded of the correct ballistics they had known evidence, would have had to she ballistics evidence. shotgun and the evi- account for the blast shotgun Williams’s placing dence an affidavit also submitted Nonetheless, her she considered hand.4 Krouse, Deputy Chief from Dr. Andrew conduct deficient. County, Examiner in Tarrant Medical autopsy to examine the whom he hired the evidentiary hearing, first After the testimony. Dr. Krouse evidence and trial A sec- judge trial left the bench. original (from Gue- pistol that the wound indicated held evidentiary hearing was before ond high probability gun) vara’s alone carried substantially the judge in which the new disagreed He with fatality of for Collier. testimony presented except that same was sig- testimony trial about the Dr. Brown’s testify again. Muldrow did not margin around Col- nificance of the red testified wound. Dr. Krouse lier’s bullet findings trial court entered of The state impossible to state with certain- that it was recommending fact and conclusions of law the two firearm ty the order which only on the granted that habeas relief be shotgun that the were inflicted or wounds in failing ineffective claim counsel was Dr. the cause of death. While wound was expert retain a firearms to show that both wounds should Krouse believed gun. “EB-1” came from Guevara’s death, of he also have been listed as causes conclusion, trial this the reaching a likelihood that believed that there was “EB-1” came from specifically found that death. “EB-1” was the cause of Collier’s and was fired from Gue- Collier’s head simultaneously gun. vara’s The trial court Finally, submitted trial counsel not demonstrated found that Williams had indicating that she Muldrow’s affidavit or that “EB-1” inflicted the fatal wound funding indepen- for sought should have already dead when ex- that Collier was experts, particularly dent ballistics In- so, shotgun. him the done Williams shot with pert. opined She that had she stead, trial court found that Collier “winning” the she would have found a defense. testimony, evidence is ir- proceeding, "Xa- heard Xavier’s this By time of the habeas the testimony question determinative of an at the relevant to the vier” had been located. His claim in a of counsel proceeding with the ineffective assistance habeas was consistent there is a reasonable theory he habeas case—whether that Collier was alive at the time probability of the trial would by shotgun, presumably that the outcome the wielded was shot However, performed been different if counsel had by Xavier was have Williams. because Johnson, effectively. Little v. 162 F.3d at which Williams See not a witness at the trial (5th Cir.1998). jury 860-61 and because the never was convicted presented, shot him with the ord of alive when Williams some the crucial result, the trial court rec- shotgun. findings As a fact and the recommendation based, denial of Williams’s claim of them, ommended at in part, least on are actual innocence. supported by presented the evidence at evidentiary the hearing. claims, assistance the ineffective

On however, proper Accordingly, the trial court found that after a review of the record testing would have caused coun- respect ballistics with to the allegations by made independent pathological sel to seek out Applicant, and with due consideration of “EB-1,” testimony possibility on the the recommendation made the trial shotgun, not the caused Collier’s death. court, the relief sought is denied. evidence, turn, changed This would have strength of cross-examination type TheC. Federal Habeas Proceeding Guevara, jury’s ultimate assessment Following the decision of the Texas credibility, and much of the Guevara’s Court of Appeals, Criminal Williams filed a closing argument. The trial prosecution’s § petition the United States Dis- jury court further determined that trict Court for the Southern District of possibly have heard and credited

would Among claims, Texas. other testimony that Krouse’s Collier was dead a claim raised of ineffective assistance of shotgun blast. The trial court before counsel based on trial counsel’s failure to concluded but counsel’s deficien- independent obtain ballistics evidence and cies, jury presented would have been testimony of an independent patholo- arguably exculpatory with favorable and gist. Williams also asserted that the cu- might evidence and have found Williams mulative effect of trial counsel’s ineffec- Accordingly, of a offense. guilty lesser tiveness and the suppressed falseness of probability there was a reasonable of a evidence undermined confidence in the enough satisfy different result sufficient to jury verdict. The district court deter- prong of v. prejudice Strickland Wash- that it mined should not conduct an evi- 668, 695, 2052, 104 ington, 466 U.S. S.Ct. Instead, dentiary hearing. granted it (1984). 80 L.Ed.2d 674 summary judgment to the state on all Despite the trial court’s recommenda- relating claims to Williams’s conviction.5 tion, the Texas of Appeals Court Criminal grounds. respect denied habeas relief on all The With to the ineffective as here, appellate two-page court entered a order sistance of counsel claims relevant denying relief. The court offered no ex- the district court faced the difficult issue planation analysis or to support its deci- of how to handle the Texas of Court Crim following: sion other than the Appeals’s regarding inal decision the state findings. habeas court’s factual Under Evidentiary hearings were held and the the Antiterrorism Effective Death and judge findings trial entered of fact and (AEDPA), Penalty Act deference must be allegations conclusions of law to the as given findings to factual of the state court findings raised. In those and conclu- convincing the absence of clear and sions trial court has recommended granted contrary. relief be due to evidence to the 28 U.S.C. ineffective assis- 2254(e)(1). However, § tance of counsel. we do not Because the ineffective as believe, adjudicat- based on our review of the rec- of counsel were sistance claims above, Simmons, 551, 574-75, Roper v. 5. As noted the district court 125 commuted 543 U.S. 1183, (2005). prison Williams’s sentence to life in under S.Ct. 161 L.Ed.2d 1 358 court, court, Appeals explain of

ed in state the district as well Court Criminal did not court, to the accepted reject- as our must defer state which facts it and which it determination court’s resolution unless its ed. He contends that the district court “contrary ap- to” or an “unreasonable erroneously judgment, substituted its own clearly plication of’ established federal law guessing accepted which facts were and by as determined the United States Su- rejected, incorrectly a applied pre- 2254(d); § preme Court. see also Hill v. sumption of correctness to the facts it (2000). Johnson, 481, 210 A F.3d 485 accepted. determined were contrary clearly court decision is to state if it “applies

established federal law rule presumption ap A of correctness governing that contradicts the law set plies explicit findings of fact and to eases,” [Supreme Court] forth “those findings unarticulated which are 362, 405, Taylor, v. 529 U.S. 120 S.Ct. necessary to the state court’s conclusions 1495, (2000), “if 146 L.Ed.2d 389 or Cockrell, of mixed and fact.” v. law Valdez court confronts a set of state facts (5th Cir.2001). 941, 274 F.3d 948 n. 11 A materially indistinguishable are from de- findings trial court’s factual are entitled to Supreme never- [the Court] cision if presumption of correctness even theless arrives at a result different from appellate state court reached a different 406, precedent.” Id. at [the Court’s] legal applying conclusion when the law to 1495. A S.Ct. state decision involves Mata, those facts. v. Sumner U.S. application clearly an unreasonable es- 539, 764, 101 S.Ct. 66 L.Ed.2d 722 546— if tablished federal law the state court Procunier, (1981); Craker 756 F.2d “correctly governing legal identifies the (5th Cir.1985). 1212, 1213-14 On the other it applies unreasonably rule but to the hand, a state habeas trial factual court’s ” .... particular prisoner’s facts of a case findings do not review the Tex survive 407-08, Id. at 120 S.Ct. 1495. Appeals they as Court of Criminal where Because the Texas Court of Criminal adopted incorporated were neither nor into Appeals specify failed to which of the state appellate peremptory court’s denial of findings rejected, trial factual court’s relief, directly but instead were inconsis diligently conscientiously district court appellate tent with the court’s decision. attempted to discern on its own which Collins, 231, v. Micheaux 944 F.2d findings factual survived and which did (5th Cir.1991) (en banc). Micheaux, court, very in thorough not. The district a this Court held such circum ultimately and deliberate opinion, conclud- stance, the presumption of correctness did only findings ed the factual inconsis- not attach to the state habeas trial court’s tent with the denial of habeas relief—the findings and the federal district court cor state trial court’s findings regarding the rectly hearing conducted de novo on the prejudicial alleged effect of counsel’s er- Id.; petitioner’s Singleton claims. see also disregarded. rors —would be It concluded (5th Johnson, 381, v. 178 F.3d 384-85 Cir. remaining that the trial court factual find- 1999) (concluding that when the state ha- ings were entitled to deference and denied beas trial court recommends that relief be appeal habeas relief. This followed. granted part in part and denied but the Appeals Texas Court of Criminal denies

II. DISCUSSION order, relief without written there are no appeal, factual challenges findings presumption On the dis- to which the attaches, approach trict court’s of requiring because the Texas correctness the fed- Beitel, D.D.S., Appellant, a de novo Brian A. court to conduct eral district evidentiary hearing). the Texas of Criminal Given Court OCA, Inc.; Outsource, OCA decision, pure

Appeals’s specu it would be Inc., Appellees. lation for this court or the district court to No. 08-30055. facts the Texas Court of determine which concluded were Appeals Criminal Appeals, United States Court of supported by were not the evidence. Ac Fifth Circuit. cordingly, conclude that this case is Dec. analogous Singleton, to Micheaux and Craker, findings such that no factual sur give

vive to which we can deference. As a

result, the district court must a de conduct hearing

novo ineffective as Williams’s premised on trial

sistance of counsel claims to the failings respect

counsel’s with ballis evidence, pathological

tics and as well as point. cumulative error

Williams’s

III. CONCLUSION grant

We REVERSE the trial court’s

summary judgment to the State on the conviction,

question of and RE- Williams’s evidentiary a full

MAND for de novo hear-

ing of Williams’s ineffective assistance of

counsel claims on which the Certificate of

Appealability granted. JOLLY, Judge,

E. GRADY Circuit

dissenting: respectfully

I I affirm dissent. would essentially

the denial of relief habeas carefully

the reasons so stated the ex- opinion of the conscientious

tensive district

judge. OCA, INC.;

In the Matter of: OCA

Outsource, Inc., Debtors.

Case Details

Case Name: Williams v. Quarterman

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Date Published: Dec 10, 2008

Citation: 551 F.3d 352

Docket Number: 05-20350

Court Abbreviation: 5th Cir.