Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-50404/USCOURTS-ca5-19-50404-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lorie Davis, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
Appellee
Marcus Tyler Sheffield
Appellant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-50404

MARCUS TYLER SHEFFIELD,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

LORIE DAVIS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL 

JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:18-CV-385

Before JONES, HIGGINSON, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Marcus Tyler Sheffield, Texas prisoner # 2034529, was convicted in 2015 

by a jury of two counts of sexual assault of a child and was sentenced to 10 

years of imprisonment on both counts to run concurrently. He now moves for 

a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s denial of his 

28 U.S.C. § 2254 application.

Sheffield argues that his statement to police during an interview was 

obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). He also 

* 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

April 9, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-50404 Document: 00515378203 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/09/2020
No. 19-50404

2

argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and to call 

Dr. William Rogers as a witness about his treatment of Sheffield for a disorder 

that affected Sheffield’s mental and physical development.

A COA may be issued “only if the applicant has made a substantial 

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When 

the district court rejects constitutional claims on their merits, a COA should 

issue only if the petitioner “demonstrate[es] 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); see Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000).

Sheffield has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, his request 

for a COA is DENIED. His motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is 

also DENIED.

To the extent Sheffield argues that the district court erred in denying 

him appointed counsel, an order denying a motion for appointment of counsel 

in a habeas proceeding is not a “final order” that disposes of the merits of a 

habeas corpus proceeding for purposes of § 2253(c), and therefore is not subject 

to the COA requirement. Harbison v. Bell, 556 U.S. 180, 183 (2009). Because 

Sheffield has not shown that the district court erred in denying his request for 

appointment of counsel, we AFFIRM in part. See Pennsylvania v. Finley, 

481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987); Schwander v. Blackburn, 750 F.2d 494, 502 (5th Cir. 

1985).

Case: 19-50404 Document: 00515378203 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/09/2020