Watson v. Davis

• Decision Date: 31 August 2017
• Docket Number: CIVIL NO. SA-16-CA-090-OLG
• Parties: ROBERT JAMES WATSON, TDCJ No. 547826, Petitioner, v. LORIE DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas

ROBERT JAMES WATSON, TDCJ No. 547826, Petitioner, v. LORIE DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice,Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent.

CIVIL NO. SA-16-CA-090-OLG

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

August 31, 2017

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court are Petitioner Robert James Watson's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Docket Entry "DE" 1), Respondent's Answer (DE 9), and Petitioner's Traverse (DE 16).¹ Also before the Court are Petitioner's Motion for Expansion of the Record (DE 17), Motion for Leave to Amend Petition (DE 18), and Motion for Evidentiary Hearing (DE 19). Having reviewed the record and pleadings submitted by both parties, the Court concludes Petitioner is not entitled to relief under the standards prescribed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Petitioner is also denied a certificate of appealability.

I. Background

In May 2012, Petitioner was found guilty by a Bexar County jury of delivery of a controlled substance (enhanced) and was sentenced to ten years of imprisonment. State v. Watson, No. 11-1543-CR (274th Dist. Ct., Guadalupe Cnty., Tex. May 15, 2012). The facts of Watson's offense were accurately summarized by the Fourth Court of Appeals on direct appeal:

In April of 2011, the Guadalupe County Sheriff's Office Narcotics Division entered into an agreement with a confidential informant, Melvin Bruns, to help secure several drug cases for indictment. In exchange for Bruns's help, the District Attorney's Office agreed not to file an evading arrest charge pending against Bruns. One of the individuals identified by Bruns was [Petitioner] Robert Watson.

On April 12, 2011, Lieutenant John Flores fitted Bruns with an audio/video recording device. Under surveillance by the sheriff's office, Bruns drove to Watson's residence, parked the vehicle, and entered Watson's home. During the transaction, Bruns allegedly purchased cocaine from Watson. Bruns then drove to a predetermined location to meet Lieutenant Flores and Investigator Kris Deslatte. Investigator Deslatte obtained the substance in question from Bruns's vehicle. The entire proceedings, from shortly after Bruns was fitted with the recording device until Investigator Deslatte removed the substance from Bruns's vehicle, were recorded. Later analysis proved the substance in question was approximately 1.83 grams of cocaine.

On May 15, 2011, Watson was charged with one second-degree felony count—delivery of a controlled substance, namely cocaine. Because Bruns's whereabouts were unknown at the time of trial, Bruns did not testify. The jury returned a guilty verdict, and after finding the State's enhancement allegation true, assessed punishment at ten years confinement.

Watson v. State, 421 S.W.3d 186, 189 (Tex. App.—San Antonio, Dec. 4, 2013, pet. ref'd).

Watson's conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal, and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals refused his petition for discretionary review on May 14, 2014. Id.; Watson v. State, No. 0294-14 (Tex. Crim. App.). On March 12, 2015, Watson filed a state habeas corpus application challenging the constitutionality of this state court conviction and sentence, which the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals later denied without written order on December 23, 2015. DE 11-21 at 90; DE 11-16; Ex parte Watson, No. 25,844-10 (Tex. Crim. App.).

The instant federal petition was filed a month later on January 20, 2016. DE 1 at 10. In the petition, Watson argues: (1) the judgment is invalid because it incorrectly reflects the court in which the case was tried; (2) the judgment is invalid because a visiting judge presided over his trial; (3) his trial was a nullity because it was held at a time not authorized under Texas law; (4)he was denied the effective assistance of counsel by counsel's cumulative failure to challenge the above errors; (5) the State unlawfully obtained his conviction by securing an indictment without probable cause and by illegally using a confidential informant; (6) the State committed prosecutorial misconduct by soliciting false testimony, suppressing material evidence, and making a misleading opening statement; (7) trial counsel failed to file a motion to suppress all evidence related to the confidential informant; (8) trial counsel failed to raise Confrontation Clause objections to the hearsay testimony of the confidential informant; (9) trial counsel failed to raise an objection to scientific testimony under Rule 702 of the Texas Rules of Evidence; (10) he received ineffective assistance on direct appeal by counsel's failure to adequately challenge the trial court's rulings; and (11) he received ineffective assistance on direct appeal by counsel's failure to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence, the trial court's ruling on the motion to suppress, and the trial court's refusal to rule on his motion for new trial.

II. Petitioner's Motions

A. Motion to Expand Record

Petitioner's first motion (DE 17) asks this Court to expand the record pursuant to Rule 7 of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases. Under Rule 7, "the judge may direct the parties to expand the record by submitting additional materials relating to the petition." In discussing this rule, the Fifth Circuit has observed that a federal habeas petitioner is "entitled to careful consideration and plenary processing of [his claims], including full opportunity for presentation of the relevant facts." Stewart v. Estelle, 634 F.2d 998, 1000 (5th Cir. 1981) (quoting Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 298 (1969)).

Watson moves for expansion of the record to include "all exhibits and affidavits attached to his § 2254 petition and memorandum brief." He also requests that the record be expanded toinclude all of the motions filed in state court in connection with his state habeas proceedings. No exhibits or affidavits were attached to his § 2254 petition, however, and the state court record already includes the motions Watson filed during his state habeas proceedings. See DE 11. Because an expansion of the record is unnecessary to afford Watson a "full opportunity" to present relevant facts, Stewart, 634 F.2d at 1000, Watson's motion (DE 17) is denied.

B. Motion to Amend

Watson next requests leave to amend his § 2254 petition with a new claim challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction. DE 18. A petitioner's motion to amend must be considered in the context of the rules that apply in § 2254 cases. Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 654 (2005) (holding the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases govern federal habeas proceedings launched by state prisoners). Rule 12 provides that the "Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to the extent that they are not inconsistent with any statutory provisions or these rules, may be applied to a proceeding under these rules." Rule 12, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. The applicable civil rule is Rule 15(a)(2), which provides that a "court should freely grant leave [to amend] when justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).²

Rule 15(a) evinces a liberal amendment policy and a motion to amend should not be denied absent a substantial reason to do so. See Jacobsen v. Osborne, 133 F.3d 315, 318 (5th Cir. 1998). In exercising its discretion, the Court may consider a variety of factors, including "undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failures to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party[], and futility of the amendment." United States v. Trevino, 554 F. App'x 289, 293 (5th Cir. 2014) (quoting Jones v. Robinson Prop. Group, L.P., 427 F.3d 987, 994 (5th Cir. 2005)). Leave toamend should be denied when doing so is required for fairness to the party opposing the motion for leave to amend. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltime Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321 (1971).

Here, Respondent has not opposed the motion for leave to amend, nor does there appear to be an issue of undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, or repeated failures to cure deficiencies. Watson's motion for leave to amend requests permission to present an issue bearing upon the fundamental fairness of his state court trial. Moreover, Watson's proposed amendment of his petition to include a stand-alone sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim does little more than expand upon the allegation that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise such a claim on direct appeal. The Court will permit Watson to amend his original petition to include his stand-alone challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.

C. Motion for Evidentiary Hearing

Watson next requests an evidentiary hearing (DE 19) to challenge the state court's resolution of his claims for relief. His request is denied, as habeas petitioners are not entitled to a federal evidentiary hearing to develop new evidence to attack the state court's resolution of their claims. See Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 181-82 (2011) ("If a claim has been adjudicated on the merits by a state court, a federal habeas petitioner must overcome the limitation of § 2254(d)(1) on the record that was before that state court."). Under the AEDPA, the proper place for development of the facts supporting a claim is the state court. See Hernandez v. Johnson, 108 F.3d 554, 558 n.4 (5th Cir. 1997) (holding the AEDPA clearly places the burden on a petitioner to raise and litigate as fully as possible his federal claims in state court). Thus, as in this case, when a petitioner's claims have been rejected on the merits by the state courts either on direct appeal or during petitioner's state habeas corpus proceeding, further factual development in federal court is effectively precluded. Pinholster, 563 U.S. at 181-88 (2011)(holding an evidentiary hearing is unnecessary when a state court has rejected a claim on the merits and federal habeas review of that rejection...