Taylor v. Thaler

Decision Date07 October 2010
Docket NumberNo. 09-70023,09-70023
PartiesLEE ANDREW TAYLOR, Petitioner - Appellant v. RICK THALER, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRLMLNAI JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION, Respondent - Appellee
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Before KING, STEWART, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Texas death row inmate Lee Andrew Taylor appeals the district court's denial of habeas relief. For the following reasons, we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

In 1995, at the age of 16, Taylor robbed an elderly couple in their home in Houston, Texas. He was subsequently convicted of aggravated robbery1 and sentenced to a term of life imprisonment. While he was serving that sentence, Taylor came into possession of a "shank"—a prison-made stabbing implement—which he used against Donta Green during the morning of March 31, 1999. Taylor stabbed Green 13 times and inflicted numerous other scratch wounds; Green later died as a result.

Taylor was indicted for capital murder for intentionally or knowingly causing the death of an individual while serving a sentence of life imprisonment for aggravated robbery. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 19.02(b)(1), 19.03(a)(6)(B).2 Following a jury trial, Taylor was convicted and sentenced to death. On December 11, 2002, hearing the case on direct appeal, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (TCCA) affirmed. Taylor next sought post-conviction relief in the state trial court, which denied relief. On March 31, 2004, the TCCA, adopting the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law, similarly denied relief.

Taylor next sought a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court. In his application under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Taylor raised 14 issues that he claimed warranted relief. The district court dismissed all of Taylor's claims, see Taylor v. Thaler, No. 4:04-CV-150, 2009 WL 2833453 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 31, 2009), but issued a certificate of appealability (COA) with respect to three of them. Those three claims raise essentially two issues: (1) whether using Taylor's aggravatedrobbery conviction—for an offense he committed as a minor—as the predicate for his capital murder conviction constitutes cruel and unusual punishment; and (2) whether admitting Taylor's prison disciplinary record during the sentencing phase of his capital murder trial violated his right to confront the witnesses against him.3 Taylor now appeals the denial of habeas relief on those three claims.

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

In an appeal from a district court's denial of habeas relief, we apply the same standards as the district court. Wooten v. Thaler, 598 F.3d 215, 218 (5th Cir. 2010). Taylor's habeas proceeding is subject to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). See Pierce v. Thaler, 604 F.3d 197, 200 (5th Cir. 2010). Under AEDPA, we may not grant habeas relief:

with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim—
(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or
(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

A state court decision is "contrary to" federal precedent if it applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth by the Supreme Court or if it involves a set of facts that are materially indistinguishable from a Supreme Court decision but reaches a result different from that Court's precedent.

Woodfox v. Cain, 609 F.3d 774, 789 (5th Cir. 2010) (citing Woodward v. Epps, 580 F.3d 318, 325 (5th Cir. 2009)). "The relevant 'clearly established federal law' is the law that existed at the time the state court's denial of habeas relief became final." Pierce, 604 F.3d at 200 (citing Abdul-Kabir v. Quarterman, 550 U.S. 233, 238 (2007); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 390-94 (2000)).

III. DISCUSSION

As mentioned above, the district court granted Taylor a COA for each of three claims that he presented in his federal habeas petition. Two of those issues involve the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, 4 while the third involves the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause.5 We first address the Eighth Amendment issues before turning to the Sixth Amendment issue.

A. Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Taylor's Eighth Amendment arguments consist of two discrete theories. First, he claims that the Supreme Court's decision in Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), forecloses the use of his prior aggravated robbery conviction as the predicate elevating his homicide offense from non-capital to capital murder because he was a minor when he committed the aggravated robbery offense. Second, he claims that Texas's capital scheme impermissibly expands the classof persons eligible for the death penalty to include persons who commit murder while serving a sentence of life imprisonment for aggravated robbery. The State urges that both claims were procedurally defaulted and are, in any event, meritless. We pretermit discussing the procedural defaults, as Taylor's "claim [s] can be resolved more easily" on the merits. See Busby v. Dretke, 359 F.3d 708, 720 (5th Cir. 2004).

1. Youthfulness

In Roper, the Supreme Court held that "[t]he Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments forbid imposition of the death penalty on offenders who were under the age of 18 when their crimes were committed." 543 U.S. at 578. Taylor urges that we should interpret Roper to reach the conclusion that his own "diminished moral culpability at 16 years of age, the time at which he committed aggravated robbery, should preclude use of that conviction and sentence as an aggravating factor thereby making him eligible for the death penalty."6

We conclude that Taylor's claim must fail because Roper does not clearly establish that he is ineligible for the death penalty. The Roper Court held only that "[t]he age of 18 is... the age at which the line for death eligibility ought to rest." 543 U.S. at 574. In reaching this conclusion, the Court identified three ways in which juvenile offenders differed from adult offenders: (1) lack of maturity and underdeveloped senses of responsibility; (2) vulnerability to negative influences and outside pressure; and (3) less developed characters. Id. at 569-70. According to the Court, "[t]hese differences render suspect any conclusion that a juvenile falls among the worst offenders." Id. at 570. Afterrecognizing "the diminished culpability of juveniles," id. at 571, the Court then analyzed whether the two recognized social purposes—retribution and deterrence—were furthered by allowing the death penalty for offenders under 18 years of age, id. at 571-72. The Court noted that "[r]etribution is not proportional if the law's most severe penalty is imposed on one whose culpability or blameworthiness is diminished, to a substantial degree, by reason of youth and immaturity." Id. at 571. It further determined that "the same characteristics that render juveniles less capable than adults suggest as well that juveniles will be less susceptible to deterrence." Id. The Court concluded that "[w]hen a juvenile offender commits a heinous crime, the State can exact forfeiture of some of the most basic liberties, but the State cannot extinguish his life and his potential to attain a mature understanding of his own humanity." Id. at 573-74.

While the Roper decision clearly establishes that the death penalty may not be imposed as punishment for an offense committed as a juvenile, it does not clearly establish that such an offense may not be used to elevate murder to capital murder. Here, Taylor is not being punished again for his earlier crime but is instead being punished for a murder that he committed as an adult. See Cannady v. Dretke, 173 F. App'x 321, 329-30 (5th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (likening § 19.03(a)(6) to a constitutionally acceptable recidivist statute). Thus, the TCCA did not unreasonably apply federal law in concluding that Taylor's aggravated robbery conviction and corresponding life sentence rendered him eligible for the death penalty under § 19.03(a)(6)(B).

2. Overbreadth

Taylor also argues that Texas's capital-sentencing scheme fails to genuinely narrow the class of persons eligible for the death penalty. He contends that it is unconstitutional for Texas to authorize the death penalty in cases where a murder is committed by an inmate serving a life sentence foraggravated robbery but not where the same murder is committed by an inmate serving a life sentence for various other crimes. Taylor's argument is, essentially, that because there are other serious crimes that cannot serve as predicates for § 29.03(a)(3), the crime of aggravated robbery may not be so used.

"[T]he Constitution 'does not mandate adoption of any one penological theory.'" Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 25 (2003) (quoting Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 999 (1991) (Kennedy, J., concurring)). Instead, the Supreme Court has emphasized its longstanding "tradition of deferring to state legislatures in making and implementing such important policy decisions." Id. at 24 (citing cases). This deference requires that the state have "a reasonable basis for believing" that an enhanced sentence "'advances the goals of its criminal justice system in any substantial way.'" Id. at 28 (alterations omitted) (quoting Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 297 n.22 (1983)). Where the death penalty is involved, the Supreme Court has articulated the following rule: "If a State has determined that death should be an available penalty for certain crimes, then it must administer that penalty in a way that can rationally distinguish between those individuals for whom death is an appropriate sanction and those for whom it is...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT