Amero v. Dir., TDCJ-CID
| Decision Date | 24 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | 2:19-CV-195-Z-BR |
| Parties | JEREMY WILLIAM AMERO, Petitioner, v. DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas |
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS BY A PERSON IN STATE CUSTODY
Jeremy William Amero, a Texas prisoner, petitions the Court for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. For the reasons set forth below, Amero is not entitled to federal habeas corpus relief or a Certificate of Appealability from this Court.
There is no genuine dispute as to the operative facts of Amero's offenses. On the evening of October 26, 2015, Amero, driving his white Mustang, closely pursued another vehicle driven by Tammy Morgan, a friend of Amero's girlfriend Rory Schepisi, for more than three miles across Amarillo, Randall County, Texas. Amero made numerous lane changes and attempted to stay directly behind or beside Morgan's vehicle. Morgan pulled over at one point when Amero yelled at her and she saw his shotgun. She handed Amero her phone charger when he demanded it but refused to tell him where Schepisi was. A third vehicle, driven by Evan Gray, attempted to intercede and get between Amero's Mustang and Morgan's SUV. But Amero managed to maintain contact with Morgan's SUV until police made a traffic stop of Amero's vehicle after it crossed into Potter County. During the vehicular pursuit, Amero pointed a loaded shotgun at both Gray and Morgan. When police stopped Amero's vehicle, they found his loaded pump-action shotgun on the front seat of his vehicle. Both Gray and Morgan testified without contradiction to the foregoing facts at the punishment phase of Amero's trial in January 2017. (ECF 13-6 at 10-18, 46-68).
On November 15, 2015, a Randall County grand jury indicted Amero on two counts of aggravated assault, i.e., intentionally and knowingly threatening both Gray and Morgan with imminent bodily injury by using a deadly weapon, to wit, a firearm, in connection with the events described above.[1]
On October 28, 2016, Amero entered guilty pleas to both of the counts against him. In the Order approving admonitions issued that date by the trial court and executed multiple times by both Amero and his trial counsel (attorney R. Walton Weaver), Amero represented that (1) he understood the warnings and information set forth in that document; (2) he was aware of the consequences of his pleas as set forth in his plea memorandum; (3) he was mentally competent to enter his pleas and was sane at the time of his offenses; (4) no one had threatened him in any way or placed him under any kind of fear in order to cause him to enter his pleas; (5) his pleas were freely, knowingly, and voluntarily entered; and (6) no one had promised him anything in order to cause him to enter a plea to the charges against him.[2]
On January 13, 2017, the state trial court heard testimony from Amero's victims Gray and Morgan, as well as several law enforcement officers involved in Amero's arrest on October 26, 2015. (ECF 13-6 at 10-68). The prosecution also presented multiple witnesses who testified about a separate incident that took place in June 2016 in which Amero pointed a gun at Amanda Renee Arias, then Amero pointed the gun at his own head, and the ensuing standoff with law enforcement resulted in SWAT teams from multiple law enforcement agencies responding to the situation. (Id. at 73-119).
On January 24, 2017, Amero's trial counsel presented testimony from (1) a Potter County Sheriff's Department warrant officer regarding Amero's June 2016 extradition from Florida and (2) Amero's family therapist (Dr. Wilbert Newton) regarding Amero's history of substance abuse and anger management counseling. (ECF 13-7 at 6-32).
On February 17, 2017, the state trial court sentenced Amero to serve concurrent ten-year terms of imprisonment on each of the two counts against him. (ECF 13-8 at 4-12).[3]
Amero appealed his convictions and sentence. Attorney Seth Kretzer filed Amero's appellate brief on August 18, 2017, raising two points of error, i.e., arguments that the state trial court erred in allowing the prosecution to present testimony about the June 2016 police standoff because the prosecution had failed to give proper notice to the defense of its intention to present evidence of that incident and also because the prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Amero committed the acts alleged in June 2016.[4] In an unpublished opinion issued January 5, 2018, the Texas Seventh Court of Appeals affirmed Amero's convictions and sentence. Amero v. State, 2018 WL 343500 (Tex. App.-Amarillo Jan. 5, 2018).[5] On February 8, 2018, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals refused Amero's petition for discretionary review.[6]
On July 23, 2019, Amero filed a pro se application for state habeas corpus relief in which he argued that (1) the state trial erred when it failed sua sponte to hold a hearing to determine Amero's competency before accepting his guilty plea; and (2) Amero's trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by (a) failing to challenge venue; (b) failing to advise Amero regarding the availability of an insanity defense; (c) failing to contact Amero's physician to inquire regarding the medications Amero was taking and their impact on Amero's sanity at the time of his offense and competence to enter a guilty plea; (d) erroneously advising Amero to plead guilty instead of not guilty by reason if insanity; (e) failing to request a competency hearing; (f) failing to present Amero's medical records from a June 2015 incident in which Amero was treated for a suicide attempt; and (g) failing to adequately object to the prosecution's introduction of extraneous bad acts.[7] On September 25, 2019, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied Amero's state habeas corpus application without written order. Ex parte Amero, WR-90, 295-01 (Tex. Crim. App. Sept. 25, 2019).
On October 15, 2019, Amero filed a pro se petition for federal habeas corpus relief in which he argued that (1) the state trial court erred in failing to conduct a competency hearing before accepting Amero's guilty plea because Amero suffers from bi-polar disorder; and (2) his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to (a) investigate the charges against Amero and challenge venue in Randall County; (b) investigate the case against Amero and present an insanity defense based upon Amero's bipolar disorder and the unspecified medications Amero was taking on the date of his offense; (c) discuss the possibility of presenting an insanity defense with Amero; and (d) know the law applicable to an insanity defense and informing Amero that bi-polar disorder is not insanity. (ECF 3).
On October 28, 2019, Amero filed a memorandum of law in support of his federal habeas corpus petition to which he attached numerous documents, including excerpts from the trial testimony of Amero's family counselor, Dr. Newton, and Amero's own affidavit. (ECF 5; ECF 51). On February 12, 2020, Respondent filed his answer. (ECF 12). On March 3, 2020, Amero filed his traverse. (ECF 14).
Because Amero filed this federal habeas corpus action after the effective date of the AntiTerrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), this Court's review of his claims for federal habeas corpus relief is governed by AEDPA. Penry v. Johnson, 532 U.S. 782, 792 (2001). Under the AEDPA standard of review, this Court cannot grant Amero federal habeas corpus relief in connection with any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in state court proceedings, unless the adjudication of that claim either: (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States, or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding. Brown v. Payton, 544 U.S. 133, 141 (2005); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 404-05 (2000); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
The Supreme Court has concluded the “contrary to” and “unreasonable application” clauses of Title 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) have independent meanings. Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685, 694 (2002). Under the “contrary to” clause, a federal habeas court may grant relief if (1) the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by the Supreme Court on a question of law or (2) the state court decides a case differently than the Supreme Court on a set of materially indistinguishable facts. Brown, 544 U.S. at 141; Mitchell v. Esparza, 540 U.S. 12, 15-16 (2003) (). A state court's failure to cite Supreme Court authority does not, per se, establish the state court's decision is “contrary to” clearly established federal law: “the state court need not even be aware of our precedents, ‘so long as neither the reasoning nor the result of the state-court decisions contradicts them.'” Mitchell, 540 U.S. at 16.
Under the “unreasonable application” clause, a federal habeas court may grant relief if the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle from the Supreme Court's decisions...
To continue reading
Request your trial