Mejia v. Stephens

• Decision Date: 11 October 2017
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:13–CV–47
• Citation: 289 F.Supp.3d 799
• Parties: David MEJIA, TDCJ # 863486, Petitioner, v. William STEPHENS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice–Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas

289 F.Supp.3d 799

David MEJIA, TDCJ # 863486, Petitioner,

v.William STEPHENS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice–Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:13–CV–47

United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Victoria Division.

Signed October 11, 2017

David Adler, David Adler PC, Bellaire, TX, for Petitioner.

Casey Leigh Jackson Solomon, Jon R. Meador, Office of the Attorney General, Austin, TX, for Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER FOR CONDITIONAL GRANT OF WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

NANCY F. ATLAS, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. BACKGROUND...803

A. Procedural Background...803

B. Factual Background...803

II. LEGAL STANDARDS...805

A. The Anti–Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act...805

B. Summary Judgment Standard in Habeas Corpus Proceedings...807

C. Strickland Standards for Ineffective Assistance of Counsel...807

III. ANALYSIS...808

A. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Jury Instructions...808

1. Guilt–Innocence Phase...808

a. Deficient Performance...808

b. Prejudice...811

2. Punishment Phase...813

a. Deficient Performance...813

b. Prejudice...815

3. Section 2254(d)...815

B. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Marcus Mejia's Testimony and Luna's Conflict of Interest...––––816

IV. CONCLUSION...––––818

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

In this habeas action, Petitioner David Mejia has filed a petition seeking relief from his conviction and sentence for murder. Respondent filed an Amended Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. # 47], to which Petitioner responded [Doc. # 51] and Respondent replied [Doc. # 53]. After the Honorable John R. Froeschner, United States Magistrate Judge, entered a Report and Recommendation [Doc. # 54], this Court entered an Order [Doc. # 57] that adopted the recommendation in part, granting summary judgment to Respondent on certain claims; deemed the Petition a summary judgment motion on remaining claims; and withdrew the reference to the magistrate judge. The parties then filed supplemental briefing as instructed. See Petitioner's Supplement [Doc. # 58]; Respondent's Supplement [Doc. # 59]; Petitioner's Response [Doc. # 61]; Respondent's Response [Doc. # 60]. Having now considered the Petition, Report and Recommendation, objections, briefing, all matters of record, and applicable legal authorities, the Court determines that summary judgment should be granted in part for Petitioner on Petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to request additional jury instructions and granted in favor of Respondent on all other claims.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Procedural Background

Petitioner David Mejia is serving a life sentence for murder for the fatal stabbing of Marcos Torres. Mejia was tried in the 377th Judicial District Court for Victoria County, Texas, Case No. 98–5–17,336–D, Honorable Robert C. Cheshire presiding. Judge Cheshire appointed attorney Alex Luna to represent Mejia at trial. On February 25, 1999, the jury returned a verdict of guilty on the charge of murder. Clerk's Record [Doc. # 9–11], at 22.¹ That same day, the jury assessed Mejia's sentence at life imprisonment and a $10,000 fine. Id. at 30. The court entered judgment and sentence. Id. at 37.

On March 26, 1999, Mejia, represented by Luna, filed an appeal to the Court of Appeals for the 13th District of Texas in Corpus Christi, Cause No. 13–99–00160–CR. On June 1, 2000, the Court of Appeals affirmed Mejia's conviction. See Mejia v. State , No. 13-99-160-CR, 2000 WL 34252057, at *1 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 2000, pet. ref'd).

In 2012, Mejia filed a pro se state habeas writ, WR–75,955–02, raising, among other claims, claims that Luna's assistance was constitutionally ineffective.² On December 3, 2012, Judge Cheshire entered Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. See Writ WR–75,055–02 [Doc. # 9–23], at 87 ("FFCL"). On March 20, 2013, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied the writ without written order. See id. at Action Taken Sheet.

Petitioner timely filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. # 1] in this Court on July 19, 2013. Judge Froeschner appointed counsel for Petitioner and, on September 16, 2016, Petitioner filed an Amendment to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. # 45] ("Petition"). The parties then filed and briefed cross-motions for summary judgment.

B. Factual Background

In the early morning on April 17, 1998, Mejia fatally stabbed Marcos Torres at Alicia's Place, a bar in Victoria. The appellate court summarized the facts of the murder as follows:

The State's evidence showed that [Mejia] went with Johnny Arce to a bar in order to help him fight some people. A fight resulted including several people, including [Mejia] and the victim, Marcos Torres. During the fight Marcos Torres was stabbed in the heart and killed. Minutes later [Mejia] told his sister, "I cut him," and "[H]e had a gun." "It was either my life or his." Afterwards he went to an apartment where he told John Gomez that he had "stabbed some dude." [Mejia] showed Gomez how he had stabbed the victim; he reached back with his left hand and pulled the knife out of his left, rear pants pocket and stabbed forward. [Mejia] indicated that he had stabbed him in the middle of the chest. Lorenzo Dominguez was present when [Mejia] arrived at the apartment. He heard [Mejia] say, "I got the mother f––––. I stabbed him."

The medical examiner's testimony showed that Torres died from a stab wound

to the heart. He testified that the knife used to kill Torres was capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.

[Mejia] testified that when the fight started Torres swung at him, and he pushed Torres back twice. Torres lifted up his shirt, revealing a gun. As Torres approached him and started pulling out the gun [Mejia] pulled out a knife and stabbed him. His testimony was that he did not mean to stab him. He admitted that he could have turned and run away from Torres without pulling the knife.

Mejia , 2000 WL 34252057, at *1.

At Mejia's trial for murder, Luna did not request, and the trial court did not give, any jury instructions regarding lesser included offense of manslaughter, which would have carried a maximum prison sentence of twenty years. Rather, he relied entirely on the argument that Mejia had acted in self-defense. At the charging conference for the guilt-innocence phase, when the court explicitly noted that the charge did not submit any lesser included offenses to the jury, Luna confirmed that he wanted to submit the charge without any such instructions:

THE COURT: Do you have any further requested instructions?

MR. LUNA: No further requested instructions.

THE COURT: This does not include submission of any lesser—anything on any lesser included offenses to the jury, based upon the testimony and the position—and the self-defense instruction. This is the Charge of the Court that you want to submit; is that correct?

MR. LUNA: That is correct.

Reporter's Record [Doc. # 9–15], at 84–85. The jury rejected self-defense and returned a verdict of murder.

At the charging conference for the punishment phase of Mejia's trial, the drafted charge did not include a "sudden passion" instruction. When asked by the court, Luna declined the opportunity to submit any further instruction to the jury:

THE COURT: Ya'll have had a Charge of the Court as to Punishment earlier, so you've had an opportunity to read through it. If the State's ready, do you have any objections or further requested instructions?

MR. HARDY: No, your Honor.

THE COURT: If the defendant's ready?

MR. LUNA: Yes, we're ready.

THE COURT: Do you have any objections or further requested instructions?

MR. LUNA: No, sir.

THE COURT: I'll have the clerk file stamp it.

Reporter's Record [Doc. # 9–17], at 116. The sudden passion defense, if successful, would have reduced the maximum term of imprisonment to twenty years. The jury returned with a sentence of life imprisonment and a $10,000 fine.

After Mejia's conviction was affirmed on direct appeal,³ Mejia filed a state habeas petition claiming that Luna rendered ineffective assistance of counsel when he failed to request jury instructions on manslaughter and sudden passion.⁴ Luna provided an affidavit, see Writ 75,944–02 [Doc. # 9–23], at 39–42 ("Luna Affidavit"), stating that his exclusive theory of the case was self-defense:

GROUND TWO: Trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to request lesser included instructions on criminal negligent homicide, manslaughter, and sudden passion in support [of] the evidence presented during trial.

RESPONSE: The strategy of the whole trial was self-defense. This was brought out in voir dire and in questioning of all the witnesses. The testimony of the whole trial centered around applicant's contention that the deceased had a gun. My recollection was that applicant's position was that he was not guilty of any thing [sic] because of his self defense strategy. That was why he plead[ed] not guilty and agreed to testify on his behalf on this contention of self-defense. There was no evidence of any provocation on behalf of the deceased. Applicant had gone to the confrontation with the knowledge of the purpose and had armed himself with the weapon, a knife.

Luna Affidavit, at 40 (emphasis added).

The state habeas court rejected Mejia's claim. The habeas court's opinion read, in its entirety, as follows:

On the 3rd day of December, 2012, the Trial Court determines as follows after having reviewed the pleadings and papers filed in this application, the Reporter's Record of the trial, after viewing State's Exhibit 6 (videotape statement of David Mejia) admitted at trial, and after using the Court's personal recollection:

[T]he affidavit of Applicant's trial attorney ALEX LUNA is credible;

Applicant's attorney provided effective assistance of counsel;

Applicant's ground 3 claim should alternatively be barred by the doctrine of laches if it is determined that ALEX LUNA's response in his affidavit is not specific enough.

The District Clerk is ORDERED to now forward the application and

...