Canales v. Stephens
| Decision Date | 29 August 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 12–70034.,12–70034. |
| Citation | 765 F.3d 551 |
| Parties | Anibal CANALES, Jr., Petitioner–Appellant v. William STEPHENS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent–Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Teresa L. Norris, Columbia, SC, David Paul Voisin, Jackson, MS, for Petitioner–Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Anibal Canales (“Canales”) was sentenced to death following his conviction for the capital murder of Gary Dickerson (“Dickerson”). The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (“CCA”) affirmed his conviction and sentence on direct appeal, Canales v. State, 98 S.W.3d 690 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied,540 U.S. 1051, 124 S.Ct. 806, 157 L.Ed.2d 701 (2003), and denied his first application for a writ of habeas corpus, Ex parte Canales, No. 54,789–01 (Tex.Crim.App. Apr. 5, 2003).
Canales filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court in 2004; the district court stayed proceedings to allow Canales to file a successive state habeas petition. The CCA denied his successive state habeas petition in 2008. Ex parte Canales, No. WR–54789–02, 2008 WL 383804 (Tex.Crim.App. Feb. 13, 2008). Federal proceedings resumed, and the districtcourt denied his petition. The district court found he had procedurally defaulted all of his claims except his shackling claim, which it denied.
The district court then granted Canales a certificate of appealability (“COA”) on eight claims:
1. Canales received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. ( Wiggins Claim)
2. The trial court's rulings violated Canales's right to present a defense.
3. The state used another inmate, who was working as a state agent, to solicit incriminating evidence in violation of his rights to assistance of counsel and due process of law. ( Massiah Claim)
4. The state withheld material exculpatory evidence and presented false testimony, which violated his right to due process of law. ( Giglio / Napue Claim and Brady Claim)
5. The cumulative effect of his ineffective assistance of counsel and the withholding of evidence violated his right to due process.
6. Jurors lied about their criminal backgrounds, which violated his rights to due process of law, fair trial, and to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.
7. The jury communicated with the court and with the bailiff outside his and his counsel's presence during deliberations, which violated his rights to due process of law, fair trial, and to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.
8. Canales was shackled during the punishment phase of his trial in violation of his rights to due process of law, to remain silent, and to a fair trial.
For the reasons that follow, we reverse the district court on Canales's claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during sentencing, and we remand that issue to the district court. We affirm the district court on all other claims.
On July 1, 1997, prison officials caught Larry “Dirty” Dickerson (“Dickerson”), an inmate at the Telford Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (“the Unit”), with contraband that belonged to another prison gang. Dickerson told another inmate, James Baker (“Baker”), that if Baker did not help him avoid retaliation from the gang whose contraband was stolen, Dickerson would tell prison officials about a large quantity of tobacco that was to be smuggled into the prison the next day.
The next day, prison officials intercepted a shipment of contraband tobacco intended for Baker and the Texas Mafia, a prison gang. When the tobacco was intercepted, Dickerson was placed in administrative segregation. At his own request, he returned to the general population about a week later. Dickerson was found dead in his cell on July 11, 1997. Prison authorities initially concluded that Dickerson had died of natural causes. Only after conducting an autopsy did the State conclude that Dickerson had actually been strangled.
The Texas Mafia had a financial stake in the intercepted contraband tobacco and arranged for Dickerson's murder. See Canales, 98 S.W.3d at 693. Canales, who was also an inmate in the Unit, was a member of the Texas Mafia. According to the magistrate judge's summary of the facts Canales and three other Texas Mafia members—William Speer (“Speer”), Jessie Barnes, and Michael Constantine—agreed to murder Dickerson. Canales and Speer went to Dickerson's cell, and while Canales held him down, Speer strangled him.
In 1998, Canales sent a letter to Bruce Innes (“Innes”) in which he described Dickerson's murder and the Texas Mafia's interest in it. The letter was admitted into evidence at trial.
Dirty [Dickerson] lit the smoke and we smoked. When the last hit was took he was down by the vent on his knee and Puff [Speer] behind and me at the door. Puff put the hold on him and I grabbed his arms. It went smooth! He lost consciousness right away and strugled (sic) for a little bit. I took the time to inform Him who we were and why he's going to die. Puff told him.. “Don't even fuck with the Texas–MAFIA in hell!!” Ha! Ha! Ha! Anyway ... we made sure the dick sucker was dead and I declared the hit complete. We put his shit smelling ass in the top bunk and went quietly out the door. I went to the yard with minutes to spare!!
R. at 2355 () (alterations in original) (emphasis omitted).
Canales was indicted for capital murder in November 1999. In February 2000, he sent another letter to Innes. As the district court described the letter, “although written in code, [it] appeared to ask the gang to retaliate against Larry (“Iron-head”) Whited because he believed Whited had informed prison authorities about his role in the killing.” The district court also included the letter:
Greetings, Sir.. As always, I come to you and all worthy with my utmost respects (sic)! I realize that I just recently sent you a letter but it has become imperative that I write you again, as you'll see.. First, I arrived at bowie county court on 2–7–00 and was arraigned for several charges. Mrs. Speers barnes and Constinetine were also there.. I must tell you that the worst has been done and its (sic) one of the charges (Main one actually) Glarinly (sic) absent was that iron headed fella.. He was not charged, which is good .. Eh? Seems that iron obes (sic) bend to the will of the state or not. I personally think so.
Perhaps some effort can be used to throw that useless material to the scrap yard.. I can't stress how important this is. As you know Iron can be shaped into what you want it to look like and not in a good way sir!! If this can't be done then I'll need to ask for legal-assistance from other arenas .. And that's not to(sic) cool! Maximum effort Ace, Maximum!! Now, I will also get with Mr. JR on the others who are involved and can help get it all in order. Also, it's possible that a legal defense fund will be placed to help with council, (sic) legal material, clothes (for court) I'll have our attorney (who's a freeworld) get it together and put out flyers to all the best.
R. at 2356–57 (emphasis omitted). This letter was also admitted into evidence at trial.
In April 2000, Canales wrote a third letter to another inmate, which read in part:
Yeah bubba, I've been bummed a bit, just a small funk, no sweat .. A lot has to do with my case and its outcome or the way I see it. It's not good, and I've got a few making matters worse with their mouths! I was here with Tony Rice, I know him and his case and I know how it came about, I was in super seg with him there in 85 and then we were all on the same wing (L—Wing) in 86–87 and we got tight. I saw the downfall and how it came about and who was responsible! I've got snakes in the yard and it's getting worse from the crap coming outta the mouths of so-called homies. One dayroom call homeboy, and I'll get it all straight! Bet that! But what can I do? Nothink! Nada! Zero! Zip! 0! But, I'm a firm believer that what goes around, comes around! And that what you sow, you reap! So, I'll be content with justice in the end. TDC is not big, at all! So......
R. at 2357. The State also introduced this letter into evidence at trial.
The 1998 letter was particularly important in the guilt phase, and the other two letters were used at punishment phase to help establish “future dangerousness,” the special issue that led to his capital sentence. Canales, 98 S.W.3d at 699. The State also used several inmates as witnesses, including Innes (who allegedly started working as a State agent in 1999 or 2000), Richard Driver, Jr., and Doyle Hill.
Canales was convicted of capital murder in state district court, and based on the jury's answers to special issues under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 37.071, the court sentenced him to death. The CCA affirmed his sentence on direct appeal. Canales, 98 S.W.3d at 700. Canales also filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in state court, presenting ninety-seven issues for review; the CCA denied his petition. Ex parte Canales, No. 54,789–01 (Tex.Crim.App. Apr. 5, 2003).
In 2004, Canales filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court in the Eastern District of Texas. His petition raised thirteen claims, including the eight on which the district court granted a COA. Canales filed a motion to stay his habeas proceedings so that he could return to state court to exhaust...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Juniper v. Zook
...second Martinez element focuses only on the deficiency prong of Strickland and bypasses the prejudice prong. See, e.g., Canales v. Stephens, 765 F.3d 551, 569 (2014) ; Detrich v. Ryan, 740 F.3d 1237, 1245–56 (9th Cir.2013) (en banc) (plurality opinion). But Martinez itself requires an analy......
-
Prible v. Lumpkin
...when "some objective factor external to the defense impeded counsel's efforts to raise the claim in state court." Canales v. Stephens , 765 F.3d 551, 562 (5th Cir. 2014) (quoting McCleskey v. Zant , 499 U.S. 467, 493, 111 S.Ct. 1454, 113 L.Ed.2d 517 (1991) ). "A factor is external to the de......
-
Ramey v. Davis
...showing cause flowing from habeas counsel's representation, an inmate still must demonstrate "actual prejudice." Canales v. Stephens , 765 F.3d 551, 571 (5th Cir. 2014) ; see also Martinez , 132 S.Ct. at 1321 (remanding for an assessment of actual prejudice). The Fifth Circuit has held that......
-
Castillo v. Stephens
...prosecution used the testimony in question knowing that it was false. Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. at 153-54; Canales v. Stephens, 765 F.3d 551, 573 (5th Cir. 2014) (a conviction obtained through false evidence known to be such by representatives of the State violates a defendant's con......
-
Review Proceedings
...default under Martinez because petitioner did not show “substantial claim” of ineffective assistance of counsel); Canales v. Stephens, 765 F.3d 551, 568 (5th Cir. 2014) (same); Deck v. Jennings, 978 F.3d 578, 582 (8th Cir. 2020) (same); Dickinson v. Shinn, 2 F.4th 851, 858-59 (9th Cir. 2021......
-
Trials
...had counsel objected, there is reasonable probability defendant would not have been sentenced as career offender); Canales v. Stephens, 765 F.3d 551, 569-71 (5th Cir. 2014) (counsel’s failure to investigate and present mitigating evidence showing extensive abuse and neglect could have been ......