Mullis v. Thaler
| Decision Date | 20 July 2021 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 3:13-cv-121 |
| Parties | TRAVIS JAMES MULLIS, Petitioner, v. BOBBY LUMPKIN, Director, TDCJ-CID, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas |
In 2011, a Texas jury found Travis James Mullis guilty of capital murder. He was sentenced to death. Soon thereafter Mullis waived his right to pursue state appellate and habeas remedies. Because of his waivers, Mullis never gave the state courts an opportunity to consider any constitutional challenge to his conviction and sentence. Through appointed counsel, Mullis filed a petition for federal habeas corpus relief in 2013. The Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) which governs Mullis' petition requires that inmates fully exhaust all state court remedies before federal habeas relief becomes available. For the reasons discussed below, the Court finds that Mullis has not shown that this Court can reach the merits of his unexhausted constitutional claims. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss Mullis' federal habeas petition. The Court will also not certify any issue for consideration by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
In 2008, Mullis lived in a friend's trailer home in Brazoria County with his girlfriend and their three-month-old son Alijah. On January 28, 2008, Mullis attempted to sexually assault his friend's eight-year-old daughter. After returning home and bickering with his girlfriend, Mullis put Alijah in the back seat of his girlfriend's car and drove to Galveston. In the early morning hours of January 29, 2008 Mullis parked his car in a secluded location on the Galveston Seawall and then sexually assaulted his son.
Alijah cried uncontrollably after the assault. Mullis unsuccessfully tried to quiet him and then began strangling the baby. Alijah made gurgling sounds until Mullis took him out of the car and stomped on his head several times, crushing his skull. After throwing the lifeless corpse into the brush, Mullis fled to Philadelphia.
Mullis turned himself in to police officers a few days later. Mullis voluntarily confessed to the crime. The State of Texas charged Mullis with capital murder for intentionally causing the death of an individual under six years of age. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.03(a)(8).
Mullis stood trial in the 122nd Judicial District Court of Galveston County, Texas, with the Honorable John Ellisor presiding. Trial counsel[1] faced a difficult task in representing Mullis. The facts of the crime were horrific, and Mullis' written and videotaped confession provided nearly indefensible grounds for conviction. Tr. Vol. 25 at 224, Vol 37, SX-36(a). Trial counsel rested in the guilt/innocence phase without calling any witnesses. In closing arguments, trial counsel did not minimize the appalling nature of the crime Mullis committed. See, e.g., Tr. Vol. 27 at 20 (“This is a horrible crime.”). Trial counsel, however, pleaded for jurors to open their minds to “cool reflection” and “consider all relevant facts and circumstances.” Tr. Vol. 27 at 21. The defense urged jurors to find Mullis guilty only of a lesser offense. Tr. Vol. 27 at 37.
The jury found Mullis guilty of capital murder on March 11, 2011. The jury determined Mullis' fate by answering two special issue questions in a separate punishment phase: (1) would Mullis be a future danger to society and (2) did sufficient evidence mitigate against a death sentence? In the penalty phase, Mullis' background took a prominent role as both State and defense witnesses painted a bleak picture of his early life. Mullis was born with necrotizing enterocolitis. Mullis' biological parents were absent from his life: his father abandoned the family soon after his birth and his mother died when he was ten months old. Mullis' uncle and aunt adopted him but failed to provide a safe environment. At least by age three, Mullis' adoptive father began sexually assaulting him.
The defense focused its case on Mullis' history of mental illness that first manifested in early childhood. Mullis spent years in and out of counseling, treatment centers, and state custody. During that time, mental-health professionals diagnosed him with various psychological conditions, including attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), bipolar disorder, depression, anxiety, oppositional defiant disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). As a young teenager, Mullis sexually assaulted his younger female cousin. Mullis was subsequently hospitalized for suicidal threats. Mental-health professionals prescribed psychotropic medication which Mullis stopped taking as he aged.
Mullis exhibited various psychological conditions while incarcerated before trial, including depressive symptoms, flashbacks of past trauma, and hallucinations. Mentalhealth experts diagnosed him with impulse control disorder and PTSD. A psychological evaluation diagnosed him with reactive attachment disorder, features of narcissistic and antisocial personality disorder, a high likelihood of bipolar disorder, and pedophilia nonexclusive type. Mullis had attempted suicide by overdosing with vitamins. He continued reporting suicidal feelings. Doctors again prescribed psychotropic medications, but Mullis eventually stopped taking them.
The State focused its case on Mullis' history of violence and illegal acts. Mullis had a pattern of sexually assaulting young children. The State portrayed Mullis as someone whose violent tendencies could not be ameliorated with medication, treatment, or incarceration. The State emphasized that Mullis had homicidal thoughts since age 11. He had repeatedly rejected, and victimized, those who reached out to help him. He even assaulted his own grandmother. During his incarcerations as a juvenile and as an adult, Mullis assaulted staff members, feigned suicidal behavior, violated rules, and created a “hit list.” The State argued that Mullis' life history proved that he was manipulative, remorseless, and without conscience. And the jury weighed whether the haunting facts of the murder alone justified a death sentence.
On March 21, 2011, the jury answered Texas' special issues in a manner requiring the imposition of a death sentence. Clerk's Record at 846.
On March 21, 2011, Mullis filed a notice of appeal. Clerk's Record at 836, 874. Two days later, the trial court appointed Wayne Hill to represent Mullis on direct appeal. Clerk's Record at 844. On April 19, 2011, Mr. Hill filed a sealed Motion for New Trial in the trial court. Mullis, however, would prevent his appellate attorney from advocating on his behalf.
Appellate counsel met with Mullis “numerous times” regarding his appellate rights. Mullis “expressed in no uncertain terms” his desire to “waive his direct appeal” and proceed pro se. 34 RR 4-5. At Mullis' urging, Mr. Hill filed a document entitled
Waiver of Rights and Invocation of Defendant's Right to Proceed Pro-Se on May 20, 2011. Clerk's Record at 903. Mullis himself signed each page of the motion. Clerk's Record at 903-05. The waiver attested that Mullis had “considered and contemplated this matter for a significant period of time” and that he invoked his right to self-representation “voluntarily, intelligently and knowingly, and with full appreciation of the direct and collateral consequences of his actions. Clerk's Record at 904. The document also assured that Mullis was “mentally competent to make the decisions” with “the mental capacity to understand the choice between life and death and to make knowing and intelligent decisions not to pursue further remedies.” Clerk's Record at 905.
In the May 20, 2011, hearing initially scheduled to address the motion for a new trial, the trial court discussed Mullis' desire to proceed pro se. Mr. Hill informed the trial court that he had “talked extensively” with Mullis about his waiver and, “while philosophically [he] disagree[d] with his decision, ” Mr. Hill believed that Mullis was competent to make it. Tr. Vol. 34 at 18.[2]
Mr. Hill provided the trial court some observations about Mullis' request:
Because he “was present, obviously, during [Mullis'] whole trial and got to hear quite a bit about [his] background [his] upbringing, ” the trial judge engaged Mullis in a colloquy that explored his history of mental problems, his knowledge of the legal process, and the reasons for which he wished to terminate judicial review. Tr. Vol. 34 at 8. The trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial