Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-40329/USCOURTS-ca5-03-40329-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Doug Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
Appellee
Robert Clinton Hinkle
Appellant

Document Text:

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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

F I L E D

January 22, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-40329

Summary Calendar

 

ROBERT CLINTON HINKLE,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

DOUG DRETKE, DIRECTOR, 

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, 

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:02-CV-110 

--------------------

Before BARKSDALE, Emilio M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

A jury convicted Robert Clinton Hinkle, Texas inmate #877047,

of capital murder, finding that he shot and killed two men as they

sat in his living room. The trial court sentenced Hinkle to life

imprisonment. The district court granted a COA on the issue

whether counsel provided ineffective assistance when he told

Hinkle’s witnesses that their testimony was not needed. 

 Case: 03-40329 Document: 0051126521 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/22/2004
No. 03-40329

-2-

Federal habeas relief may not be granted on questions

adjudicated on the merits by a state court unless the state court’s

decision (1) was contrary to or was an unreasonable application of

clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court;

or (2) 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). 

To establish ineffective assistance, Hinkle must show that

counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient

performance caused him prejudice. See Strickland v. Washington,

466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). “[C]omplaints of uncalled witnesses are

not favored, because the presentation of testimonial evidence is a

matter of trial strategy,” and counsel is entitled to a presumption

that his performance was adequate. Wilkerson v. Cain, 233 F.3d

886, 892-93 (5th Cir. 2000). To demonstrate the required

Strickland prejudice on his claim of ineffective assistance based

on uncalled witnesses, Hinkle “must show not only that [the]

testimony would have been favorable, but also that the witness

would have testified at trial.” Evans v. Cockrell, 285 F.3d 370,

377 (5th Cir. 2002). 

The district court concluded that Hinkle did not show that the

uncalled witnesses’ testimony would have been favorable and that

counsel’s decision to omit the testimony was not a matter of sound

trial strategy. See Evans, 285 F.3d at 377; Wilkerson, 233 F.3d at

892-93. We agree. 

 Case: 03-40329 Document: 0051126521 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/22/2004
No. 03-40329

-3-

Hinkle has not made the showing required under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254(d). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 03-40329 Document: 0051126521 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/22/2004