Meachum was indicted for possession with intent to manufacture or deliver a controlled substance, enhanced by a prior conviction for possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver [Doc. # 7-34, p. 61]. He pled not guilty and was tried by a jury which found him guilty as charged. Id. at 62; State v. Meachum, No. 09-07-07009 CR (410th Dist. Ct., Montgomery County, Tex., Feb. 18, 2010). After pleading true to the enhancement, Meachum was assessed a life sentence by the court. Id.
Meachum presented two arguments filed on appeal:
1) The admissible evidence adduced at the trial was legally insufficient ;and
2) the trial court erred in denying Meachum's motion to suppress.
[Doc. # 7-2, p. 10]
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth District of Texas affirmed the state district court's judgment on April 13, 2011. Meachum v. State, No. 09-10-00077-CR, 2011 WL 1416892 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2011, pet. ref'd). The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied Meachum's petition for discretionary review on July 27, 2011. Meachum v. State, No. PD-647-11.
On November 11, 2011, Meachum filed a state application for a writ of habeascorpus challenging his conviction pursuant to Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. He presented the following grounds for relief:
1. Meachum's car was stopped and searched without a warrant or probable cause [Doc. # 7-32, p. 14];
2. Evidence was used at trial that was taken from Meachum and his car in violation of the Fourth Amendment; Id. at 15;
3. Meachum was illegally arrested in violation of the Fourth Amendment; Id. at 16;
4. The indictment brought against Meachum was based on false information given to the grand jury; Id. at 17;
5. The trial court abused its discretion in denying Meachum's motion to suppress; Id. at 18;
6. There was insufficient evidence to support Meachum's conviction; Id. at 19;
7. The State failed to prove beyond a doubt the validity of Meachum's prior conviction for enhancement purposes; Id. at 20;
8. Meachum was denied effective assistance of counsel at trial because his trial attorney:
a. Allowed the State to exclude African-Americans from the jury;
b. Allowed the State to introduce evidence of prior bad acts without rebuttal;
c. Failed to conduct an investigation regarding Meachum's motion to suppress; and
d. Failed to offer any mitigating evidence at the sentencing phase of Meachum's trial; Id. at 21; and9. Meachum was denied effective assistance of counsel on appeal because his appellate attorney failed to argue all available issues. Id. at 22.
The state district court entered a designation of issues and ordered Meachum's trial and appellate attorneys to answer specific questions regarding their representation of Meachum [Doc. # 7-33, pp. 5-7]. After receiving the attorney's responses and considering the records and the State's answer, the trial court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law recommending that habeas corpus relief be denied [Doc. # 7-34, pp. 56-59]. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied the habeas application pursuant to a written order [Doc. # 7-32, p. 2]. Ex parte Meachum, No. 77,120-02, 2012 WL 3999862 (Tex. Crim. App. Sept. 12, 2012).
B. Meachum's Claims and Respondent's Arguments Meachum filed his federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus on January 18, 2013, and presented the following grounds for relief:
1. Meachum's conviction is based on evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment [Doc. # 1, pp. 9-10];
2. The trial court erred in denying Meachum's motion to suppress [Id. at 11];
3. The grand jury indictment was defective [Id. at 10];
4. The evidence was insufficient to support the conviction [Id. at 11];
5. The State failed to prove the sentence enhancement [Id.];
6. Meachum's trial counsel was ineffective by:
a. Failing to investigate the facts;
b. Failing to object to prejudicial evidence at sentencing;
c. Failing to properly argue Meachum's motion to suppress [Id. at 12];
7. Meachum's appellate attorney was ineffective by failing to consult with Meachum before filing his direct appeal, resulting in counsel's failure to raise issues [Id.].
The respondent has filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that some of Meachum's claims are procedurally barred. Specifically, the respondent contends that Meachum's claim that his trial attorney failed to object to prejudicial evidence at sentencing is unexhausted. The respondent also contends that Meachum's claims that the grand jury indictment was defective and that the state failed to prove the enhancements are defective because they were not raised on direct appeal. In addition, the respondent argues that the illegal indictment claim is not cognizable. The respondent goes on to argue that Meachum waived his right to challenge the validity of his prior conviction when he pled true to it. The respondent states that Meachum's challenge to the evidence is meritless because there is sufficient evidence to support conviction. The respondent also asserts that the record shows that Meachum received effective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal. The parties' contentions are discussed further below under the governing federal habeas corpus standard of review.
The following is a summary of the evidence by the Court of Appeals:
Tonya McPherson, Meachum's girlfriend, rented a green Ford Taurus from Enterprise Rental Car. Although McPherson knew Meachum had an invalid driver's license, she left the unlocked Taurus and car keys at the Park and Ride on June 10, 2009, should Meachum need to use the vehicle.
That same day, Officer Clyde Vogel saw a green Ford Taurus parked in the driveway of a house. Vogel ran the license plate and discovered that Enterprise owned the Taurus and rented the Taurus to McPherson. Vogel learned that Meachum was McPherson's boyfriend and that Meachum had an invalid driver's license. Vogel contacted "unmarked narcotics officers" to conduct surveillance at the house.
Detectives Juan Sauceda and Troy Roberts arrived to conduct surveillance. When the Taurus left the house, Sauceda contacted Vogel. Sauceda stopped following the vehicle when the driver pulled into a parking lot and Sauceda felt that he had been identified as a police officer. When the vehicle left the parking lot, Roberts continued following the vehicle and, at some point, told Vogel that he believed Meachum was driving the Taurus.
Vogel conducted a traffic stop. Meachum had a passenger with him in the Taurus. Vogel handcuffed and detained Meachum. Roberts testified that Meachum "made it real clear that he didn't care if we searched the car, to go ahead and search it[,]" and said something like " 'go ahead and search the car. I don't care. There's nothing in it. Y'all know there is nothing in it.' " Vogel testified that he could not recall whether Meachum volunteered consent or whether he asked Meachum for consent to search the Taurus. The arrest record showed that Vogel requested consent. Roberts did not know whether Meachum volunteered consent or gave consent in response to a question. Vogel testified that he did not use his narcotics dog because Meachum consented to a search.
Sauceda, who arrived at the scene after Vogel and Roberts,testified that he neither heard Meachum consent nor heard Vogel or Roberts request consent. Sauceda testified that he was leaning against the driver's side door of the Taurus when he looked in the car window and saw a white-colored substance that appeared to be crack cocaine. When Vogel told Sauceda that Meachum had consented to a search of the Taurus, Sauceda took a closer look. Vogel testified that he found an open container of alcohol in plain view. Officers testified that Meachum then revoked his consent. Sauceda tested the substance he found in the vehicle, and the substance tested positive for cocaine. Because officers had found cocaine, they continued searching the vehicle. On the driver's side of the vehicle, Sauceda found other particles that tested positive for cocaine and Vogel found a bag of cocaine under the hood of the Taurus. Officers also found $286.65 in cash in Meachum's possession. Vogel arrested Meachum.
Vogel testified that the cocaine weighed 15.3 grams and that a typical rock of crack cocaine weighs .2 grams. He explained that a typical user buys one to two rocks at a time. Vogel testified that a cocaine user would not possess 15 grams of cocaine at one time, but that possession of 15 grams indicates possession with intent to deliver. Forensic scientist Dottie Collins testified that the cocaine seized from the Taurus weighed .02 grams and 9.88 grams. Roberts testified that possession of approximately 10 grams of cocaine is not for personal use. McPherson denied placing any crack cocaine in the Taurus.
Meachum, 2011 WL 1416892, at ** 1-2.
