Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-18-40992/USCOURTS-ca5-18-40992-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-40992

SHANE JERMAINE MATTHEWS,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

LORIE DAVIS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL 

JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:15-CV-286

Before HAYNES, GRAVES, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Shane Jermaine Matthews, Texas prisoner # 01753901, was convicted 

by a jury of capital murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. 

The district court denied his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition on the merits. Matthews 

now requests a certificate of appealability (COA). 

To obtain a COA, a petitioner must make “a substantial showing of the 

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Where a district court 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 13, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 18-40992 Document: 00515309004 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/13/2020
No. 18-40992

2

has denied claims on the merits, a petitioner must show “that jurists of reason 

could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims 

or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve 

encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 

(2003).

Matthews has inadequately briefed and therefore waived his request for 

a COA with respect to his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct 

appeal of his conviction. See McGowen v. Thaler, 675 F.3d 482, 497-98 (5th 

Cir. 2012). With respect to his claims of (1) ineffective assistance based on 

failure to file a motion to sever trial from all co-defendants, (2) ineffective 

assistance based on failure to object to Exhibit 64, (3) a speedy trial violation, 

(4) judicial bias, (5) improper prosecutorial comments during closing 

argument, (6) an erroneous accomplice-witness jury instruction, 

(7) insufficient evidence of a robbery, and (8) insufficient evidence he was at 

the crime scene, Matthews fails to make the requisite showing for issuance of 

a COA. See Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327. His motion for a COA is therefore 

denied as to those claims. We construe his motion for a COA with respect to 

the district court’s denial of an evidentiary hearing as a direct appeal of that 

issue, see Norman v. Stephens, 817 F.3d 226, 234 (5th Cir. 2016), and affirm, 

see Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 181-82, 185-86 (2011).

COA DENIED; AFFIRMED.

Case: 18-40992 Document: 00515309004 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/13/2020