Streetman v. Lynaugh

• Decision Date: 09 November 1987
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. B-86-0388-CA.
• Citation: 674 F. Supp. 229
• Parties: Robert STREETMAN, Petitioner, v. James A. LYNAUGH, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas

674 F. Supp. 229

Robert STREETMAN, Petitioner, v. James A. LYNAUGH, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Respondent.

Civ. A. No. B-86-0388-CA.

United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Beaumont Division.

November 9, 1987.

Will Gray, Houston, Tex., for petitioner.

Jim Mattox, Atty. Gen., Paula Offenhauser, William Zapalac, Asst. Attys. Gen., Austin, Tex., for respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

COBB, District Judge.

Robert Streetman was convicted of the capital murder of Mrs. Christine Baker by the 88th Judicial District Court of Hardin County, Texas, on August 10, 1983. In Streetman's mandatory appeal to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the conviction was affirmed. Streetman v. State, 698 S.W.2d 132 (Tex.Crim.App.1985).

On January 3, 1986, the trial court sentenced him to death by lethal injunction on February 6, 1986. At that time, Streetman informed the court that he wished his execution to be carried out as scheduled with no delay. However, on January 29, 1986, he agreed to permit the filing of a petition of writ of habeas corpus in the state convicting court.

Following an evidentiary hearing, the state court denied Streetman's petition, and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. Thereafter, Streetman sought habeas corpus relief in this court, which was denied. Streetman v. McCotter, 634 F.Supp. 290, 296 (E.D.Tex.1986). The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded, and ordered an evidentiary hearing on Streetman's claim he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Streetman v. Lynaugh, 812 F.2d 950 (5th Cir.1987).

Streetman's claim turned on allegations that his confessions of killing Mrs. Baker were coerced, and inadmissible in evidence against him, and therefore, his trial attorney's failure to urge their suppression constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.

Robert Streetman now informs the court that his confessions were not coerced, that his prior allegations to such effect before the Court of Appeals and this court were untrue, and he now wishes to waive further collateral review of his conviction and death sentence.

In addition to a motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Streetman's habeas attorney, the court is called upon to determine (a) whether Streetman is competent to waive further collateral review of his conviction; and (b) whether his trial attorney's failure to urge suppression of his confessions amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel.

I.

In his state habeas petition, Streetman asserted that he had received ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. His petition focused primarily on the conduct of his attorney, Stanley Coe, during the guilt phase of Streetman's trial. At the outset of the state hearing, Streetman's habeas counsel moved for a continuance, arguing that additional preparation was necessary in order to conduct a meaningful hearing. This motion was denied.

At the hearing, Streetman's trial attorneys, McNeely and Coe, gave conflicting testimony about the circumstances of Streetman's trial. McNeely testified that his investigation led him to believe Streetman's confessions were coerced, and thus inadmissible. Therefore, he thought Streetman might be acquitted.

Coe, on the other hand, testified that after discussing the case with Streetman and his family, he concluded no reasonable basis existed for challenging Streetman's confessions. This conclusion, coupled with the statements of Streetman's accomplices, who were prepared to testify against Streetman, led Coe to believe that his client stood little or no chance for acquittal. Therefore, he adopted a trial strategy designed to: concede guilt and avoid the death penalty by emphasizing the lesser punishment received by Streetman's equally guilty accomplices; disrupt the prosecution by bringing out the most damaging evidence in its least prejudicial form; lessen jury sympathy for the victim by establishing that she and her husband were engaged in illegal activities; and emphasizing that Streetman had a troubled and unfortunate life and was deserving of sympathy.

After exhausting his state remedies, Streetman filed an application in this court, which in addition to challenging Coe's trial conduct, alleged that Coe failed to adequately investigate the admissibility of his confessions. Streetman's habeas counsel assured this court that if granted an evidentiary hearing, he would produce several witnesses who would present material evidence not introduced in the state hearing. This court found that all material facts relevant to the voluntariness of Streetman's confessions had been adequately determined at the state evidentiary hearing, and denied relief.

The Court of Appeals, finding that Streetman's allegations regarding his confessions, if proven, would establish his ineffective assistance of counsel claim reversed:

We have little difficulty concluding that the facts regarding the voluntariness of Streetman's various statements were not adequately developed at the state evidentiary hearing. Little, if any, testimony at that hearing was directed toward the measures taken by officials to secure Streetman's confessions. Local officials involved in interrogating Streetman did not testify. Neither did Streetman or those members of his family who allegedly witnessed official misconduct. Streetman's habeas counsel avers that he will produce some or all of these witnesses if granted a federal evidentiary hearing.

812 F.2d at 958.

After his case was remanded to this court for an evidentiary hearing, and after the mandate was issued and had become final, Streetman wrote the following letter to the Court of Appeals:

May 5, 1987

Judges of the Fifth

Circuit Court of Appeals

I am writing this letter to ask and inform your court to vacate my stay of execution. I have spoken to my family and told them that I have decided to write you. Any hearings in my behalf would be a great waste of time and money because I would have to lie on the stand under oath if a hearing is held to prove coercement of my statement's.sic I do not want to lie in any sort of way about my statement's and I would be lieing sic if I got on the wittness sic stand and said they were coerced in any way or form. I was asked if I wanted a sedative to help me control my nerve's sic by Sherrif sic Holzapfel but I told him I would be all right sic. I was the one who told them about the murder of Mrs. Baker. Chief Deputy Ralph Osborn was actually in a state of shock when I mentioned the fact's sic of the murder to him. I waived my right's sic to have a lawyer present during all of the time spent taking statement's sic from me and really was treated well, just like I have said to Mr. Coe from the beginning.

Also, yes I knew about the bypass of due procceedure sic but only for a few day's sic before I gave my signiture sic to go ahead with my appeal. To speed things up but I see its only slowing thing's sic down.

As the opinion from your court say's sic, I am the only person who hold's sic the key of locking or unlocking the door to the information. I feel it right to inform your court that I have my family's backing and respect of my decision to be writing this to you and inform you that any hearing's sic will result in a waste of time and money as I stated at the first of this letter. In closing, I want to thank you for allowing me to write this and to be honest about what would happen at a hearing. I pray you will grant my wishes and vacate my stay of execution and order for a new date of execution be set.

The above is a true and accurate statement.

Thank you /s/ Robert L. Streetman

In accordance with the Court of Appeals' mandate, this court held an evidentiary hearing to determine the voluntariness of Streetman's statements, and any other relevant matters. At the hearing, Streetman's attorney, Will Gray, vigorously asserted his motion to withdraw, and declined to cross-examine any of the state's witnesses, or to call or identify any who would testify for Streetman. In consideration of Gray's sixteen-month investigation of this case, his representations to this court, and the Court of Appeals that he could call ten witnesses besides Streetman in support of his claims, and because the Court of Appeals ordered a hearing so that this evidence could be heard, the court sought to afford Gray the opportunity to present this evidence:

The Court: No offers of affidavits by family members or anything like that?

Mr. Gray: No, sir.

The Court: You have never obtained affidavits from any family members?

Mr. Gray: I've got them on tape and video tape, but this young man is not going to change his mind this time. He wants to be executed. He wanted to from the start and then his family talked him out of it. I can't participate in assisting him in his effort to be executed. He had, in my opinion, a valid claim, but it's not valid now after that letter that he wrote to the 5th Circuit says that he doesn't want to get on the stand and lie. If I can't tell whether he's lying or telling the truth, I can't put him on.

The Court: I have been ordered to hold a hearing. I'm going to hold a hearing as to the voluntariness of those confessions and you're going to be able to cross examine those officers and develop those things. I don't know what Streetman is going to say, but regardless of what Streetman says, I'm going to put those — require Mr. Zapalac, if he desires to do so, to put those people on to make their statements and you can cross examine them. If you think that you've got good reason to show such and such and such and so and so happened, then it seems to me, whether or not — if you can show by cross examination what Streetman said in the sworn petition before is, in effect, true. And you have more knowledge, and Mr. McNeely has more knowledge, about this case than anybody I can appoint.

The hearing proceeded, and Streetman was the first witness to testify. Streetman verified in detail the contents of his letter...