Ramey v. Davis
Decision Date | 09 July 2018 |
Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:13-CV-43 |
Citation | 314 F.Supp.3d 785 |
Parties | Ker'sean Olajuwa RAMEY, Petitioner, v. Lorie DAVIS, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas |
Ronald A. McIntire, Perkins Coie LLP, Los Angeles, CA, David R. Dow, University of Houston, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.
Travis G. Bragg, Pro Hac Vice, Attorney General of Texas, Edward Larry Marshall, Office of the Attorney General, Austin, TX, for Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING RAMEY'S PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
Ker'sean Olajuwa Ramey, a Texas inmate incarcerated under a capital conviction and death sentence, filed a federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus on November 13, 2013.(Dkt. No. 7).Ramey alleges that constitutional error infected his trial with unfairness.Having considered Ramey's claims, the state court record, the pleadings, the evidence, and the applicable law, the Court now finds that Ramey is not entitled to federal habeas relief for the reasons provided herein.
On December 17, 2005, the State of Texas indicted Ramey for the offense of capital murder in the 24th Judicial District Court of Jackson County Texas.The four-count indictment charged Ramey for his role in the murders of Sam Roberts, Tiffany Peacock, and Celso Lopez.After a change of venue, Ramey stood trial in Victoria County, Texas.
The State based its case against Ramey on testimony from those to whom he admitted involvement in the murders, as well as his co-defendantLeJames Norman's account of the crime.On direct appeal, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals summarized the trial testimony:
Ramey v. State , 2009 WL 335276, at *3-5(Tex. Crim. App.2009).
The defense rested without calling any guilt/innocence witnesses or presenting any evidence.1The jury instructions authorized Ramey's conviction: (1) for "caus[ing] the death of Sam Roberts and/or Tiffan[y] Peacock and/or Celso Lopez by shooting them with a firearm" in the course of a robbery or burglary or (2) for assisting Norman in the murders under Texas' law of parties.2Clerk's Recordat 172-73.The jury found Ramey guilty of capital murder.The verdict form specified that the jury found Ramey guilty as the principal actor in the crime.Clerk's Recordat 175.
A Texas jury decides a capital defendant's sentence by answering special-issue questions.In this case, the special issues asked: (1) will the defendant be a future danger to society; and (2) do sufficient circumstances mitigate against a death sentence?SeeTEX. CRIM. CODE art. 37.071 § 2(b);Clerk's Recordat 193-94.The State based its punishment-phase case on Ramey's escalating violent actions.The State presented testimony and evidence that, when Ramey stood trial at age twenty-one, he had already amassed a significant criminal history.Ramey began acting out in school at a young age.His first interaction with the legal system occurred when at age sixteen he coerced a seven-year-old boy into performing oral sex on him.Originally charged with aggravated sexual assault, the charge was reduced to assault and the court sentenced him to juvenile probation for one year.
At age seventeen, Ramey pleaded guilty to criminal mischief for breaking into a vending machine at his high school.Less than six months later, Ramey and another friend, broke into his alternative learning school and ransacked the principal's office.His probation for the two offenses was eventually revoked for failing to pay fees, perform his community service hours, and report to his probation officer.Ramey's subsequent stay in the county jail did not squelch his lawlessness.
Jurors found out that Ramey had actually burglarized the Nairn residence three times.The State also presented evidence that, after burglarizing a different location, Ramey attempted to run over the homeowner with his car.Witnesses testified that Ramey had planned other burglaries.Additionally, Ramey told friends that he had carried out various crimes for which he was never charged.Importantly, Ramey bragged that he had committed other murders.
Ramey's behavior did not improve while incarcerated before trial.He armed himself with weapons, created disturbances, and threatened guards.
The State's final witness was Dr. Richard Coons, a psychologist.Dr. Coons did not examine Ramey, but his review of relevant records led him to opine that an offender like Ramey would "commit criminal acts of violence in the future which would constitute a continuing threat to society."Tr. Vol. 38at 81.
The defense only called two witnesses in the penalty phase.Ramey's mother, Ms. Terral Stevens, provided an overview of Ramey's life.Ms. Stevens told jurors of Ramey's early emotional and mental problems, including a diagnosis of dyslexia and ADHD at age four.Early evaluations revealed emotional disturbances and a lack of social skills.Ramey told evaluators that his step-father had abused him.Ramey's mother, however, failed to seek the necessary help for her son's problems.
Dr. Mark Kunick, a psychiatrist, based his testimony on an interview with Ramey and Ramey's mother, his review of records, and his understanding of the facts of the case.Dr. Kunick opined that Ramey's nonviolence since incarceration, his close-knit family, and his lack of mental illness would make it unlikely that Ramey would be a future danger.
The jury answered Texas' special issues in a manner requiring the imposition of a death sentence.
Trial counsel represented Ramey on direct appeal.On February 11, 2009, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Ramey's conviction and sentence in an unpublished opinion.Ramey v. State ,...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Ramey v. Davis
...Mitigation Phase Claim.I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUNDThe facts of this case have been detailed elsewhere. Ramey v. Davis , 314 F. Supp. 3d 785 (S.D. Tex. 2018) ; Ramey v. State , No. AP-75, 2009 WL 335276 (Tex. Crim. App. Feb. 11, 2009). Therefore, we provide only a brief exposition h......
-
Granger v. Dir., TDCJ-CID
...a juror's general opinion on the death penalty is in no way an indication that she could not faithfully apply the law. See, e.g., Ramey, 314 F.Supp.3d at 811 (noting that even juror said he "favored" the death penalty, "he clarified that he only meant that he 'believed in it' and his opinio......
-
Maldonado v. Lumpkin
... ... apply so long as there is not a conflict with the federal ... rules governing habeas proceedings. Banister v. Davis, ... __ U.S. __, 140 S.Ct. 1698 (2020) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P ... 81(a)(4) and Rule 12 of Rules Governing § 2254 Cases) ... “and the state courts have adjudicated their merits, ... AEDPA provides for a deferential federal review.” ... Ramey v. Davis, 314 F.Supp.3d 785, 802 (S.D. Tex ... 2018) ... In ... addition to meeting this exhaustion ... ...
-
Ramey v. Lumpkin
...the district court's denial of Ramey's habeas petition.I.A.Other courts have detailed the facts of this case, see Ramey v. Davis , 314 F. Supp. 3d 785 (S.D. Tex. 2018) ; Ramey v. State , No. AP-75, 2009 WL 335276 (Tex. Crim. App. Feb. 11, 2009), but we repeat the critical ones here for comp......