Justia U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of federal habeas relief to petitioner based on the ineffective assistance of counsel. Petitioner was convicted of second degree murder stemming from the discharge of his gun during a fight that killed the victim. Petitioner testified that the gun fired accidentally when the victim pulled on the gun and the two men collided. Defendant's testimony was contradicted by an eyewitness supposedly watching the fight from outside her apartment across the street who said she saw the victim backing away from petitioner with his hands raised at the moment the gun fired. Petitioner's trial counsel never attempted to interview the eyewitness or her roommate, who would have testified that the eyewitness was actually inside their apartment at the time of the shooting.The court concluded that counsel's performance was deficient and that the state court's determination to the contrary was an unreasonable application of Strickland v. Washington. In this case, the court cannot say that a fairminded jurist would find counsel's strategic decision not to request a continuance or to even try to interview the witness to be a "conscious and informed decision." Given the importance of the witness's testimony, the court found that no fairminded jurist could conclude that the failure to introduce the roommate's impeachment testimony would not have undermined confidence in the outcome. Therefore, petitioner was prejudiced by counsel's deficient performance. View "Hughes v. Vannoy" on Justia Law

Jackson Police Officer Stanton saw a silver Cadillac parked near an open convenience store. The vehicle was occupied by two men who “didn’t appear to be exiting the vehicle, [and] didn’t appear to be patronizing the establishment.” Stanton decided to conduct a “field interview.” Several patrol cars converged on the vehicle with their blue lights activated; it would have been impossible for the vehicle to leave the parking lot. Officers approached the car. Stanton testified that the men in the vehicle were free to leave but he did not communicate that to them. Flowers, in the driver’s seat, lowered his window. Stanton reported smelling “what appeared to be the strong odor of marijuana coming from the vehicle.” Flowers provided his driver’s license. According to Stanton, the car's passenger (Mayo) then threw an object into his mouth. In response, Stanton ordered both men to exit the car. When Flowers stepped out, Stanton saw in plain view a .gun on the driver’s seat. A criminal history check revealed that Flowers had an outstanding arrest warrant. During a search incident to his arrest, Flowers stated that he had marijuana on him. Stanton recovered a small bag of marijuana from his pocket.Flowers was convicted as a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). The Fifth Circuit affirmed, rejecting a Fourth Amendment claim. Assuming that Mayo and Flowers were seizedStanton had reasonable suspicion to conduct a “Terry stop” under these circumstances. View "United States v. Flowers" on Justia Law

Texas state prisoner Haverkamp, a biological male at birth who identifies as a transgender woman, sued, alleging violations of the Equal Protection Clause by denying Haverkamp medically necessary sex-reassignment surgery and by failing to provide certain female commissary items and a long-hair pass. Texas’s Correctional Managed Healthcare Committee has a policy concerning the treatment of gender disorders. Based on the state’s advisory, the district court ordered service of Haverkamp’s operative complaint on Dr. Murray, whom the state identified as the proper defendant if Haverkamp were seeking sex-reassignment surgery, and the nine Committee members who had not yet been named as parties. The district court subsequently denied motions to dismiss, concluding that the state was not entitled to sovereign immunity.The Fifth Circuit vacated. Haverkamp’s suit is barred by sovereign immunity because the Committee members are not proper defendants under Ex Parte Young; Haverkamp fails to allege they have the requisite connection to enforcing the policies Haverkamp challenges. In light of the state’s representations to the district court that these defendants are the proper state officials to sue, the court did not dismiss them from the case. View "Haverkamp v. Linthicum" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief to petitioner, who was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. This court previously granted petitioner's application for a certificate of appealability (COA) on two issues: first, whether petitioner's trial was tainted by the exclusion of black jurors (the Batson Claim); and second, whether trial counsel rendered unconstitutionally ineffective assistance before trial and during the guilt phase of trial by failing to conduct an adequate investigation (the Strickland Claim).After rejecting the state's procedural default, abandonment, and waiver arguments, the court concluded that, because petitioner cannot identify clearly established federal law requiring state courts sua sponte to find and consider all facts and circumstances that may bear on whether a peremptory strike was racially motivated when those facts and circumstances were not identified by the strike's challenger, this argument is insufficient to surmount the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act's relitigation bar and the court is unable to grant relief on the Batson Claim. The court also concluded that petitioner's Strickland Claim ultimately fails because he cannot show prejudice affecting his substantial rights. In this case, the "unaffected" circumstantial evidence of petitioner's crime, including his direct confession, is overwhelming. View "Ramey v. Lumpkin" on Justia Law

Defendant Joel Vargas was convicted of two counts of transporting stolen goods in interstate or foreign commerce and one count of conspiracy to do the same based on his leadership of a crew of burglars, which targeted commercial tire stores. Defendant Angelica, Joel's wife, was convicted of conspiracy to transport stolen goods based on her role as the crew's paymaster and alternate burglary driver. Joel was also convicted of witness tampering based on evidence that he threatened the father of the crew member who cooperated with law enforcement in Joel's arrest.The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendants' convictions, concluding that defendants failed to show that any constructive amendment to their indictment affected their substantial rights because the trial record contained evidence supporting a guilty verdict on the crime actually charged in the indictment. Furthermore, in such cases, the court declined to exercise its discretion to grant relief. The court also concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support defendants' convictions for transportation of stolen goods in foreign commerce, conspiracy to transport stolen goods in interstate commerce, and witness tampering. View "United States v. Vargas" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit vacated defendant's conviction under 18 U.S.C. 1952(a)(2)(B) to using a facility in aid of a racketeering enterprise with intent to commit a "crime of violence," as defined by 18 U.S.C. 16. The court concluded that defendant's predicate offense of sex trafficking of children under 18 U.S.C. 1591(a)(1) and (b)(2) does not qualify as a crime of violence under section 16(a). Therefore, defendant's conviction is a result of plain error and the error, left uncorrected, would seriously affect the fairness, integrity, and public reputation of judicial proceedings. View "United States v. Jackson" on Justia Law

The Prims attended a concert at the Pavilion after consuming wine and consumed more wine during the concert. After the concert, Janet, who suffers from MS, was “stumbling" and unstable. A Pavilion employee called for a wheelchair, escorted the Prims to the security office, and smelled alcohol on Eric’s breath. Deputy Stein, who was working traffic, noticed that Eric had difficulty standing and had slurred speech. Eric admitted that he had been drinking. Eric twice failed a horizontal gaze nystagmus test. A medic evaluated Janet and called Lieutenant Webb. The Prims insisted on walking home but they would have had to cross two busy intersections in the dark. The officers tried, unsuccessfully, to find the Prims a ride home. Stein arrested them for public intoxication. The charges were ultimately dismissed. The Prims brought claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Rehabilitation Act, and tort claims.The district court granted the defendants summary judgment. The Fifth Circuit reversed with respect to Eric’s assault claim but affirmed as to Janet’s assault claim and both false imprisonment claims. The officers are entitled to qualified immunity on the section 1983 claims. Given their apparent intoxication and their route home, the officers reasonably concluded that the Prims posed a danger to themselves or others. With respect to the ADA and Rehabilitation Act, the court affirmed, noting the Pavilion is a private entity and does not receive federal financial assistance. Janet was not discriminated against based on her disability. View "Prim v. Deputy Stein" on Justia Law

Harbor filed a pre-indictment motion under Rule 41(g) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, seeking return of documents seized by the United States in five searches of Harbor locations and offices. The district court had exercised discretionary jurisdiction for a time to oversee the implementation of protective process to screen Harbor's privileged information. However, the district court declined to exercise its equitable jurisdiction further and dismissed the case.After determining that it has jurisdiction to consider this appeal, the Fourth Circuit concluded that the district court erred in its assessment of the pre-indictment harm resulting from an allegedly unlawful seizure of privileged material. The court explained that the district court erred in its understanding of the four factors under Richey v. Smith, 515 F.2d at 1243–44, in determining whether to grant a pre-indictment motion for return of property and therefore abused its discretion by declining to further exercise its equitable jurisdiction. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Harbor Healthcare System, LP v. United States" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for fifteen counts related to his numerous drug trafficking and gun crimes arising out of three separate incidents. The court affirmed the denial of defendant's suppression motion and concluded that defendant has not established that the district court clearly erred in its finding that an officer pulled defendant over for a traffic stop because he abruptly swerved into his lane, nearly hitting his car.The court also concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions for drug possession with intent to distribute, drug distribution, and firearm possession in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense; the district court acted within its discretion by denying defendant's motion to sever; there was no error on the shackling issue, let alone plain error; defendant failed to show prejudice from the Confrontation Clause violation; and because defendant knowingly waived his right to counsel and then declined, after he was given multiple opportunities by the district court, to withdraw his prior waiver and reassert his right to counsel, the district court did not err by allowing him to represent himself. Finally, the court denied defendant's ineffective assistance claim without prejudice to his raising the claim on collateral review. View "United States v. Sharp" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of drug and money laundering offenses and sentenced to over twenty years in prison. In subsequent filings under 28 U.S.C. 2255, defendant asserted the reason for him not filing a direct appeal was his counsel's failure to file despite being asked to do so at sentencing. Defendant later claimed that his counsel also failed to advise him of his appellate rights and failed to consult with him about the virtues of an appeal over the course of his counsel's representation.The Fifth Circuit granted a certificate of appealability (COA) and concluded that the district court did not err in concluding that defendant's failure-to-advise and failure-to-consult claims did not relate back to his failure-to-file claim and were, as a result, untimely. The court found persuasive the approach recently taken by the Tenth Circuit in United States v. Roe, 913 F.3d 1285, 1298–300 (10th Cir. 2019), and concluded that defendant's newly raised claims do not arise out of the same set of facts as his earlier failure-to-file claim. As in Roe, defendant's failure-to-file claim is limited in time and fact to one specific event: the entire claim turns on whether one of his attorneys heard and then failed to follow defendant's alleged whisper at the sentencing hearing. Defendant's claims to the contrary are unavailing. View "United States v. Alaniz" on Justia Law