Wardrip v. Thaler
Decision Date | 09 April 2010 |
Docket Number | Civil Action No. 7:01-CV-0247-G. |
Citation | 705 F.Supp.2d 593 |
Parties | Faryion Edward WARDRIP, Petitioner,v.Rick THALER, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Bruce Anton, Sorrels Udashen & Anton, Dallas, TX, Mary Margaret Penrose, Texas Wesleyan School of Law, Fort Worth, TX, for Petitioner.
Katherine D. Hayes, Georgette Patrice Oden, Office of the Texas Attorney General, Austin, TX, for Respondent.
Before the court are the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Findings”) and the objections of both parties to those Findings. After making an independent review of the pleadings, files and records in this case, the Findings are (except for the recommendation as to resentencing) ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions of the court.
SO ORDERED.
This cause of action was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b), implemented by an order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge follow:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
A state prison inmate has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 2254.
Petitioner, Faryion Edward Wardrip, is an inmate in the custody of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division (TDCJ-CID). Respondent is the Director of TDCJ-CID.
After Petitioner pled guilty to capital murder, a jury heard evidence from the prosecution and defense regarding punishment and assessed Petitioner's punishment at death by lethal injection. State v. Wardrip, No. F-99-0988-E, 1999 WL 34866004 (367th District Court of Denton County, Tex. Nov. 5, 1999). 1 The case was appealed to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, and the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the death sentence in a published opinion. Wardrip v. State, 56 S.W.3d 588 (Tex.Crim.App.2001). Petitioner filed a state application for writ of habeas corpus on October 26, 2000. The Court of Criminal Appeals denied relief in an unpublished order based on the trial court's findings and its own review. Ex parte Wardrip, No. 49,657-01 (Tex.Crim.App. November 14, 2001).
Petitioner filed an initial federal petition for writ of habeas corpus on December 31, 2002. Respondent filed an answer on April 23, 2003, and furnished the state court records. Petitioner filed a reply on September 23, 2003. This Court granted Petitioner's request for an evidentiary hearing and conducted hearings on October 11, 2006, and November 1, 2006. Petitioner filed a post-hearing brief on January 10, 2007, and Respondent filed a post-hearing brief on February 7, 2007.
Respondent states that Petitioner has failed to exhaust state court remedies with respect to his first and eighth grounds for relief. Respondent asserts that Petitioner did not address these claims either on direct appeal or in his state writ of habeas corpus and that they are therefore procedurally barred. Furthermore, Respondent also contends that Petitioner's other six claims were not exhausted at the state level because Petitioner has presented a substantial amount of evidence to this Court that was never presented at the state court level. Nonetheless, Respondent asserts that, in the alternative, all of Petitioner's claims should also be denied on their merits pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2).2
A. Petitioner's Sixth Amendment rights were violated because his trial attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel in the following seven respects:
1. Trial counsel failed to conduct an adequate pre-trial investigation (ground one);
This Court held evidentiary hearings on Petitioner's second, third, and fourth grounds for relief.VI. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The pertinent terms of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (the AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. § 2254, provide:
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) (2006).
Section 2254(d)(1) concerns pure questions of law as well as mixed questions of law and fact. Martin v. Cain, 246 F.3d 471, 475 (5th Cir.2001). Under the “contrary to” clause, a federal habeas court may grant the writ of habeas corpus if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by the United States Supreme Court on a question of law or if the state court decides a case differently from the United States Supreme Court on a set of materially indistinguishable facts. Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412-13, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000). With respect to the “unreasonable application” clause, a federal court may grant a writ of habeas corpus if the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle from the United States Supreme Court's decisions, but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the prisoner's case. Williams, 529 U.S. at 413, 120 S.Ct. 1495. Under Williams, a state court unreasonably applies Supreme Court precedent if it “unreasonably extends a legal precedent from [Supreme Court] precedent to a new context where it should not apply or unreasonably refuses to extend that principle to a new context where it should apply.” Williams, 529 U.S. at 407, 120 S.Ct. 1495.
Section 2254(d)(2) concerns questions of fact. Moore v. Johnson, 225 F.3d 495 (5th Cir.2000). Under § 2254(d)(2) federal courts “give deference to the state court's findings unless they were “based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding.” ” Chambers v. Johnson, 218 F.3d 360, 363 (5th Cir.2000) ( ). The resolution of factual issues by the state court is presumptively correct and will not be disturbed unless the state prisoner rebuts the presumption by clear and convincing evidence. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1).
This statute applies to all federal habeas corpus petitions which, as with the instant case, were filed after April 24, 1996, provided that they were adjudicated on the merits in state court. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 326, 117 S.Ct. 2059, 138 L.Ed.2d 481 (1997). Resolution on the merits in the habeas corpus context is a term of art that refers to the state court's disposition of the case on substantive rather than procedural grounds. Green v. Johnson, 116 F.3d 1115, 1121 (5th Cir.1997).
VII. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals recited the following factual background in its opinion on direct appeal:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wardrip v. Lumpkin
...evidence that Petitioner wrote sports-related articles as a unit reporter for the monthly prison newsletter." Wardrip v. Thaler , 705 F. Supp. 2d 593, 610 (N.D. Tex. 2010), vacated , 428 F. App'x 352 (5th Cir. 2011). The magistrate judge declined to address Wardrip's argument regarding pote......
-
Ex parte Rip
...denied relief in 2001. Applicant then filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court. Wardrip v. Thaler, 705 F. Supp. 2d 593, (N.D. Tex. 2010) vacated 428 F. App'x 352 (5th Cir. 2011). The federal district court stayed the proceedings to give applicant an opportu......