February 27, 2024, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • In re Cantu, 24-40110, motion for successive habeas petition in E.D. Tex.
    • Jones, J. (Jones, Wilson, Douglas), Jones, J., concurring; habeas corpus, Brady violation, due process
    • Denying motion for permission to file a successive § 2254 petition by capital inmate to urge Brady violations regarding potentially impeaching evidence as to testimony from the petitioner’s girlfriend and due process violations regarding the petitioner’s request for additional ballistics evidence.
    • The Court held that the petitioner failed to exercise the due diligence required to justify the opportunity to file a successive habeas petition. “Cantu cites numerous factual allegations that he could have discovered by exercising due diligence at the time of trial or no less than several years ago. He had ample opportunity to bring these alleged new facts to the court’s attention earlier than a week before his execution.”
    • The Court also held that the petitioner failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found him guilty had they been presented with the Brady impeachment evidence or the ballistics evidence. “Beside the fact that much of the new evidence described above is either not credible or not necessarily inconsistent with the evidence presented at trial as part of the State’s case, none of it undermines the critical incriminating evidence against Cantu.” Accordingly, the Court also held that the petitioner was not entitled to a stay of execution.
    • Judge Jones concurred with her majority opinion, to opine that the “last minute attempt to secure a stay of execution is an abuse. … The law of capital punishment contains multiple layers of protection against conviction of the actually innocent and for protection of those saddled with ‘mitigating circumstances.’ Cantu exhausted all these avenues. Yet his counsel, and a podcaster whose role in his representation remains unclear, have pursued frivolous last-minute filings. Their maneuver does nothing to advance their client’s cause, but it encourages gamesmanship in the future, reduces their professional credibility in the eyes of the courts, prolongs the agony of the victims’ families, and perverts legal procedures.”

Unpublished

  • U.S. v. Stokes, 23-10897, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Haynes, Graves), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • Williams v. Williams, 23-20375, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Higginson, Engelhardt), qualified immunity
    • Affirming qualified immunity dismissal of § 1983 claims against responding paramedics arising from death of plaintiff’s grandson.
  • U.S. v. Martinez, 23-40179, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Higginson, Engelhardt), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Rocha, 23-50566, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Willett, Duncan, Ramirez), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Ortiz-Juarez, 23-50670, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Stewart, Douglas), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming conviction and sentence for illegal reentry.
  • U.S. v. Valdez-Sandoval, 23-50679, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jolly, Engelhardt, Douglas), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming conviction and 21-month sentence for illegal reentry.