Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinion should not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 40450

PA TR I CKD EO N D AV I S, P eti ti on er - A p p ell a n t v. R IC KT H A L E R , D IR E C T O R , T E XA S D E P A R T M E N T O F C R IM IN A L J U S T IC E , CO RR EC T I ONA L I NS T I T UT I ONS DIVI S I ON, R espon den t- A pp el l ee

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i tedS tates D i stri ct C ou rt f or t h e E aster n D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 6: 07- C V

- 397

B e fo r e J O N E S , C h ie f J u d g e , a n dB E N AV ID E S a n dP R A D O , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R IA M: * P et i t i on er Pa t ri ck D eon D avis ( “ D avis ” ) , convic t ed of att em pted m u rder,
a gg ra va tedass a u l t, an dpo sse ssion of a f i rea rm bya fel on an ds e n ten ced to
c o n c u r r e n t t e r m s o f im p r is o n m e n t o f 4 0 , 3 0 , a n d 1 0 y e a r s , re s p e c tiv e ly , a p p e a ls t he deni alof

fede r al habeas r el i ef

. D avi s c ont ends t hat he r ec eived i nef fec t ive as si st ance of

counse lbased on an al l ege d c onf l i c tof i nt er es tw i t h hi s at t or ney.

United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April12, 2010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 08-40450 Document: 00511076744 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/12/2010N o. 08- 40450

2 Addi t i o nall y, D av i s a r gue s t hat the d i s t r i c tc o ur te r r e d i n a pplyi ng t he
c o n c u r r e n ts e n t e n c e d o c t r i n e t o v a c a t e h i s a g g r a v a t e da s s a u l tc o n v i c t i o n a nd sentence an d to decl i n e revi ew of w h et h er he rec eivedinef fect ive assi st an ce of
c ounse lf

orhi s c ounse l ’ s fai l ure t o advance a doubl e j eo par dy c l ai m duri ng t r i al
or c h al l en ge t h e i n di ct m en tas m u l t i pl i ci t ou s. O n M arch 24 , 200 9, t h i s C ou rt g r a n te da C e r tific a te o f A p p e a la b ility (“C O A”) w ith re s p e c t t o th e s e cla im s . S ee 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 (c ). D a v is h a s n o t s h o w n a n a c tu a l c o n flic t or th a t a n a c tu a l c o n flic t a d v e r s e ly
a ffe c te dh im

. N o rh a s D a v is s h o w n th a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e c is io n to v a c a te h is agg ravated assau l tconvi ct i on an d sen t en ce w as err or. B ecau se t h e convi ct i on f o rb ot h a t t e m pt e d m ur de ra nd a gg r av at e d a s s aulti n t hi s c as e v i o l at e d t he p r o v is io n s o f th e D o u b le J e o p a r d yC la u s e , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t w a s co r r e c t in vacati n g t h e aggrav ated assau l tconvi ct i on a n d den yi n g rel i ef on t h e att em pted
m u r d e rch a r g e . I

. B AC KGR OUND T i m O w en s, h i s au n t, D em on dO w en s, a n d som e of the i r f ri en d s d rov e to S h a ron F l etch er’ s h ou se. U p on arriva l , T i m an dD em on dex i tedthe i r ve h i cl e to go t o t h e h ou se. A pp el l an t D avis an d s everal ot h er m en surroun ded an d op en ed f i r e o n Ti m . The r e s u l t i n g sho t gunpe l l e t s b l i nde d hi m . Att he s c e ne o f t he sho ot i ng, poli c e r ec ove r ed s pents hel lc as i ngs, includi ng a s pent20 g auge
s h o tg u n s h e ll a n ds e v e r a l s p e n t .3 8 0 s h e lls

. D a v is w as t ri ed befor e a j u ry an d f ou n d gu il t y on charges of att em pted
mu r d e r , a g g r a v a t e da s s a u l t , a n du n l a wf u lp o s s e s s i o n o f a f

i r e a r m b yafe l o n . O n M arch 11 , 200 5, D avis w as sentenced to concu rrent t erm s of 40 yea rs f

or at t e m pt e d m ur de r , 3 0 ye ar s f o ra gg r av at e d a s s ault , a nd 10 y e ar s f o runl awf

ul p o s s e s s io n o f afir e a r m b yafe lo n . A f t er hi s s t ate appea lan d st ate hab eas rem edi es w ere d en i ed, D avis f i l ed t he i nst antfe de r alha be as pe t i t i o n. The di s t r i c tc o ur tde ni e d habe as c o r pus Case: 08-40450 Document: 00511076744 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/12/2010N o. 08- 40450

3 rel i ef as t o al lcl ai m s, ex cept t h e cl ai m of i n ef fect ive assi st an ce of

cou n selbased
on t ri alan d ap pel l ate c ou n sel ’ s fai l u re t o rai se dou bl e j e o pa rdy cl ai m s. S p ecif i ca l l y, D a vis arg u ed tha t do u b l e j eo p a rd y b a rred a co n victi on f or b oth
a g g r a v a te da s s a u lt a n da tt e m p te dm u r d e r . T h e S ta te co n c e d e dth a t d o u b le je o p a r d yb a r r e daco n v ic tio n fo rb o th a tt e m p te dm u r d e ra n da g g r a v a te da s s a u lt
u n der t h e i n d ictm e n tbroug h tagainstD avis

. B ased on t h e State’ s c on cess i on and r e que s t , t he di s t r i c tc o ur tv ac at e d t he a gg r av at e d a s s aultc o nvi c t i o n o n t he basi s of the concu rrent sentence doctr i n e an d d en i ed rel i ef as t o t h e att em pted
m u rder convic t i on rat h er t h an f i n d a vi ol ati on an d grant rel i e f. T h is C ou rt g r a n te dD a v is ’ s re q u e s t t o is s u e aC O Aw ith re s p e c t t o w h e th e rD a v is v a lid ly
w a iv e dh is rig h t t o co n flic t-f r e e re p r e s e n ta tio n a n d , if n o t, w h e th e rD a v is
rece ive di n effective a ssistan ce of cou n sel ba sed on the all eg ed co n fli ct o f i n teres t. T h is C o u r ta ls o g r a n t e d a C O Aw it h r e s p e c tto w h e t h e rth e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s ap pl i cat i on of

t h e concurrent sentence doct ri n e as app l i ed to D avis w as err or. I I

. S TA NDARD OF RE VI EW I n exam i ni ng r eques t s f orfede r alhabeas c or pus r el i ef, w e r evi ew f orc l ear e r r o rth e fin d in g s o f fa c ts m a d e b yth e d is tr ic t c o u r t. Bos t i c k v. Q uar t e r m an , 580 F. 3d 303, 306 ( 5t h C i r . 2009) (c i t i ng M yersv. Joh n son , 76 F

. 3 d 1 3 3 0 , 1 3 3 3 ( 5 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 )). W e re v ie w d e n o v o th e d i s t r i c tc o u r t’s co n c lu s io n s o f la w . Se ei d. Pur s uantt o t he fe de r alha be as s t at ut e , a s a m e nde d b y t he A n t i t erro r i s m a nd E ffe c t iv e D e a t h P e n a lt yA c to f 1 9 9 6 (A E D P A), w e d e fe rto as t a t e c o u r t ’s
a dju d ic a tion of a p e tition e r’s cla im s o n th e m e rits u n les s th e sta te co u rt ’s d e c is io n w a s : (1 ) “c o n tr a r yt o , o rin v o lv e da n u n r e a s o n a b le a p p lic a tio n o f, cle a r ly est abli shed F e d e ra l l aw , as deter m i n ed byt h e Su prem e C ou rtof t h e U n i t ed S ta te s ;” o r (2 ) “r e s u lte d in a d e c is io n th a t w a s b a s e d o n a n u n r e a s o n a b le determ i n a ti on of

t h e fact s i n l i gh tof

t h e evi den ce presented i n t h e State court p r o c e e d in g .” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 (d ); s e e Avi la v . Q u art e r m an , 560 F. 3d 299, 304 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ); se e a lso W o o dfor dv. V

isc iotti , 537 U

. S. 19, 27 ( 2002) (not i ng t hat Case: 08-40450 Document: 00511076744 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/12/2010N o. 08- 40450

4 fe de r alha be as r e l i e f i s m e r i t e d o nl y i f

t he s t at e c o ur tde c i s i o n i s i nc o r r e c ta nd
o bje c tiv e lyu n r e a s o n a b l e ). As ta te co u r t’s d e c is io n is co n tr a r yto cle a r ly
e s t a b l i s h e d fe d e r a l l a w i f i t r e a c h e s a l e g a l c o n c l u s i o n i n d i r e c t c o n f l i c tw i t h a pr i o rSupr e m e Cour tde c i s i o n o rif i tr e ac he s adif

fe r e ntc o nc l us i o n t han t he S u p r e m e C o u r t b a s e do n m a te r ia llyin d is tin g u is h a b le fa c ts
. S eeA v ila , 560 F

. 3d at304 (c i t i ng Wi l l i am s v. T aylor , 5 2 9 U .S

. 3 6 2 , 4 0 4 -0 8 ( 2 0 0 0 ))

. T h e s t a t e c o u r t ’s fi n d i n gs of fact a re pre su m ed to b e correc t. Id

. T h u s , t he pe t i t i o ne rha s t he b u r d e n t o r e b u t th is p r e s u m p tio n w ith c le a ra n dco n v in c in ge v id e n c e . I d. (c i t i ng V a ld ezv. Co ck re ll , 2 7 4 F .3d 9 4 1 , 9 4 7 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 1 )). I I I

. I NEFF ECT I VE A S S I S TA NCE OF COUN S EL T o est abli sh i n ef

fect ive assi st an ce of

coun sel , D avis m u stshow ( 1) defen se coun sel ’ s perf

orm an ce w as def

i ci e n t a n d ( 2) t h i s def i ci en tperf

orm an ce p r eju d ic e dt h e d e fe n s e . S t ri cklan dv. W ash i ngt on , 4 6 6 U .S . 6 6 8 , 6 8 7 (1 9 8 4 ). W e
m u stf i n d that t ri alcoun sel“ m ad e err ors so s eri ou s th a t c o u n sel w as not fun cti on i n g a s th e ‘ cou n sel’g u a ra n teed

. . . b y th e S i xth A m en d m en t. ” Id

. The S u p r e m e C o u r t in s tr u c ts c o u r ts to lo o ka t t h e “n o r m s o f p r a c tic e a s re fle c te din A m eri can B ar A ssoc i ati on st an da rds” an d t o consi der “ al lt h e circum st an ces” of
a ca s e . Id

. at 688. W hi l e “ [j ] udi c i als c r ut i ny of c ounse l ’ s per f

or m ance m ustbe h i g h l yd e fe r e n t i a l , ” Da v i s c a n d e m o ns t r a t e d e f i c i e n tp e r f

o r ma n c e if

h e s h o ws

“ t hat c o uns e l ’ s r e pr e s e nt at i o n fe l l be l o w an o bj e c t ive s t and ar d of
rea son a b l en ess . ” Id

. at 688- 89. H ow eve r , “ [t] her e i s a ‘ st r ong pr es um pt i on t hat
c ou n sel ’ s c onductfal l s w i t hi n t he w i de r ange o f r eas onabl e pr of

es si onal
a ssistan ce.’” Un i t ed S t ate s v. W ebst er , 3 92 F. 3d 78 7, 7 93 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 4) ( quo t i ng St r i c kland , 4 6 6 U .S . a t 6 8 9 ). S t ri c kland ’ s “ prej u di ce” prongrequi res a
r e a s o n a b le p r o b a b ilitytha t, bu t fo rth e d e fic ie n t p e r fo r m a n c e o f h is tr ia l co u n s e l, th e o u tc o m e o f h is tr ia l w o u ldh a v e b e e n d iffe r e n t. St r i c kland, 466 U

. S. at694. “Ar e a s o n a b le p r o b a b ilityis a p r o b a b ilitys u ffic ie n t t o u n d e r m in e co n fid e n c e in th e ou tcom e.” I

d. Case: 08-40450 Document: 00511076744 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/12/2010N o. 08- 40450

5 O u r r evi ew of

t h e rec ord provid e s lit t l e sup port t h at t h e di st ri ctcourt erred i n fi n di n g t h at D avis w aivedh i s Si xth A m en dm en tcl ai m by i n si st i n g on C argi l l ’ s c on t i n u ed representati on i n t h e st ate t ri alcourtat a h eari n g at w h i ch potenti a l co n fli cts w ere di scussed. H ow ever, w e need not r el y on w aiver. R at her , D avi s’ s i nabi l i t y t o show thatan ac t ualc onf l i c tex i st ed and t hathe w as ad versely af

fect ed bysuch con f

l i ct doom s h i s posi t i on . A cl ai m f or a c on f

l i ctof i nt er es tbas ed o n m ul t i pl e r epr es ent at i on r equi r es t he pet i t i onert o show t hat i) coun selact ivel y represented conf l i ct i n g i n t erest s and i i) t h e conf l i ctof i n t erest
a d v e r s e lya ffe c te dc o u n s e l’ s p e r fo r m a n c e . B ee ts v . S co tt , 65 F. 3d 1258, 1265- 66 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) (e n b a n c ); s e eCuyle rv . Sul l i v an , 4 4 6 U .S

. 3 3 5 , 3 4 8 -5 0 (19 8 0 ). M u l ti p l e rep rese n tati on do es n ot alw a ys crea te an i m p erm i ssible con fli ct. Un i t ed Stat es v. C u l verhou se , 507 F. 3d 888, 892 ( 5t h C i r . 2007)

. As pec ul at ive o rp o te n tia l co n flic t is n o t e n o u g h ; ra th e r , aco n flic t e x is ts w h e n co u n s e l is
c o m p e lle d to c o m p r o m is e d u tie s o f lo y a lty to h is c lie n t. S ee B ost i ck , 580 F. 3d at 3 0 7
. A n act u alconf l i ctexi st s if

defen se c ou n seli s i n a posi tion o f divi ded lo y a ltie s , se e Un itedS ta tes v. Infa n te , 4 0 4 F .3 d3 7 6 , 3 9 2 (2 0 0 5 ), th a t r e s u lts in
coun selkn ow i n g h i s cl i en t s’i n t erest s diverge an d that r equ i res h i m t o choose b e tw e e n th e in te r e s ts o r c o m p r o m is e h is d u tyo f lo y a lty , C u l verhou se , 507 F. 3d
a t 8 9 3
. If cou n sel i s b u rd en ed w i th a n a ctu a l con fli ct of i n teres t, p r eju d ic e is presum ed on ce t h e ap pl i can t show s both t h at coun sel act ed un der t h e i n f l u en ce o f t he c o nf

l i c ta nd t hatco uns e l ’ s ac t i o ns adv e r s e l y af fe c t e d t he r e pr e s e nt at i o n. I d. at 892
. Aconcl u sory al l egati on of an act u alconf

li ct is insu f

f i ci en tf or o b ta in in gh a b e a s co r p u s re li e f. Peri l lo v. Joh n son , 205 F

. 3d 775 , 781 ( 5th C i r. 2 0 0 0 ). A n “a d v e r s e e ffe c t” is e s ta b lis h e dw ith e v id e n c e th a t p r e s e n ts ap la u s ib le def ens e s t r at egyort ac t i ct hatcou l d have bee n purs ued butf ort he ac t ual
c o n flic t. I

d. Case: 08-40450 Document: 00511076744 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/12/2010N o. 08- 40450

6 D avis contends that C argi l l ’ s r epresentati on of G ross an d O l iver w as a c o n fl ic tth a tr e s u lt e din C a r g il l n o tc a ll in gt h e m t o t e s t if ya s w it n e s s e s in D a v is ’s def ens e. Pri ort o D avi s’ s t r i al , O l iverhad t es t i f i ed atD avi s’ s par ol e he ar i ng t hat D a v is “w a s n o t th e r e o n th e n ig h t of th e s h o o tin g .” C a r g ill p r o v id e da n a ffid a v it
w i t h t h e f

ol l ow i n g response: M r. D avis hi red m e becau se Iw as repres e n tin gt h e ot h er defenda n t s. Ido n otbel i eve t h ere exi st ed an act u alcon fli ctof in te re st. L a M a rv inG ro ss a n dR o b inO liv e r n e v e r p la n n e dto te stify th a t M r. D a vis w a s n ot the re. In fac t, the y w ou l dh a ve testifi ed to t he c o nt r ar y. M r . D av i s a dm i t t e d t o c o uns e lt hathe w as t he r e , b ut n oti n volvedi n t h e shooti n g bu t w an t ed to pu rsue t h e al ibidefen se to a v o idp a r o le re v o c a tio n . W h ile D a v is a s s e r ts th a t G r o s s a n dO liv e rw o u ldh a v e te s tifie d o n h is b e h a lf if
a s k e d , h e d o e s n o t su p p o r t h is a s s e r tio n . S eeB oy dv. Este lle , 661 F. 2d 388, 390 ( 5th C i r. 198 1) ( st ati n g t h at un cal l ed w i t n ess com pl ai n t s are n otfavo r e d becau se o f th e sp e cu la tiv e n a tu re of th e a ll e g e d te stim o n y a n dtria l stra te g yth a t oc cu rs ). D a vis also d i dn ot p rov i d e a ff i d a vits exe cu tedbyeith er of the tw o co-d efen d a n ts st at i ng t hei rw i l l i ngness t o t es t i f y and t he con ten tof t hei rt es t i m ony. C o n c lu s o r ya s s e r tio n s o f aco n flic t a r e n o t e n o u g h fo rh a b e a s re lie f. S eePer illo , 2 0 5 F .3 da t 7 8 1 ; R o ss v. Este lle , 6 94 F. 2d1 00 8, 101 2 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 98 3)

. By fail i ng t o pr e s e nte v i d e nc e t ha te s t a b l i s he s ap l a us ib l e d e fe ns e s t r a t e g yo rt a c t i c t hat
c oul d have bee n purs ued butf ort he ac t ualc on fl i ct, D avi s has no ts how n an act u alconf

l i ctt h at adversel y af fect ed h i m . H abea s rel i ef based on hi s c on f

l i ct
c la im is d e n ie d

. I V. CO NCUR RE NT S ENT ENC E DOC T RI NE W e a l so gran t ed a C O At o deter m i n e w h et h er t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s deci si on to a p p lyth e c o n c u r r e n t se n te n c e d o c tr in e a n dto d e c lin e re v ie w o f w h e th e rD a v is
r e c e ive d i ne f

fe c t ive as s i s t anc e o f c o uns e l f o r hi s c o uns e l ’ s fail ur e t o ad vance a do ubl e j e o pa r dyc l ai m dur i ng t r i alo r c hall e nge t he i ndi c t m e nta s m ul t i pl i c i t o us Case: 08-40450 Document: 00511076744 Page: 6 Date Filed: 04/12/2010N o. 08- 40450

7 w as er r or . The c onc urr ents ent enc e do c t r i ne i s a toolof j udi c i alec onom y. Un itedS ta tes v. S tov a ll , 825 F. 2d 817, 824 ( 5t h C i r . 1987 ) (c i t i ng B e nt on v. Mar y land , 3 95 U

. S. 7 84 , 7 91 ( 19 69 ) )

. U nde rt hi s do c t r i ne , t he e xi s t e nc e o f o ne va l i d s e nt e nc e m ak e s unne c e s s ar y t he r e vi e w o f o t he rs e nt e nc e s tha tr un c o n c u r r e n tlyw ith it. I d. W e h ave ap pl i ed thi s doct ri n e i n a vari et y of cases , in c lu d in g c a s e s w ith cla im s o f D o u b le J e o p a r d yv io la tio n s . Se ei d. ; se e a lso S co tt
v . Lo ui s i ana , 9 3 4 F .2 d 6 3 1 , 6 3 3 -3 5 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ); Will ia m s v . Mag g io , 714 F. 2d 5 5 4 , 5 5 5 -56 (5th C i r. 1 9 8 3 ) ( “ev en a ssu m i n g th a t h e cou l d[p rev a i lon the m erits of hi s doubl e j eo par dy c l ai m f ordupl i c at ive c onvi c t i ons ] , t he m axi m um habeas
r e lie f a v a ila b le w o u ldb e th e in v a lid a tio n o f o n e o f th e s e n te n c e s . . . ”); D e nni s v. Hopp er , 5 4 8 F .2 d 5 8 9 , 5 9 0 (5 th C ir . 1 9 7 7 ); R oge rs v . W ai nw r ight , 394 F. 2d 492, 4 9 3 (5 th C ir . 1 9 6 8 ) (p e rcu r ia m ). D av i s ’ s c e nt r alc l ai m a ga i ns tt he us e of t he c o nc ur r e nts e nt e nc e do c t r i ne is th a t h is ca s e s h o u ldb e r e m a n d e dfo rre s e n te n c in gra th e rth a n h a v in gh is agg ravated assau l tconvi ct i on an d sentence vacated becau se h i s c ou n selfai l ed t o r a i s e ad o u b l e j e o p a r d yc l a i m i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t
. T h e S t a t e c o n c e d e s , a n dwe ag r e e , t hatt he c o nvi c t i o n w as an unr e as o nab l e ap pl i c at i o n o f fe de r all aw and a
v io la tio n o f d o u b le je o p a r d y : H e r e , D avis ’i ndi c t m e nta l l e ge d t hathe c o m m i t t e d b o t h t he a tt e m p te dm u r d e ra n da g g r a v a te da s s a u lt c o u n ts b ys h o o tin gT im O w e n s w ith afir e a r m . ExPa rteD a v is , at 81

- 83
. Thi s i s c l e ar l y t he sam e con du ct : thu s, D avis ’aggrav ated assau l tof fen se w as i n cl u ded i n t h e att em pted m u rder of fen se, an d h i s c on vi ct i on s and sentences fo rb o th o ffe n s e s a r e je o p a r d y -b a r r e du n d e rT e x a s la w . O u rre v ie w o f th e re c o r da n dth e S ta te ’ s co n c e s s io n d e m o n s tr a te th a t D a v is is
n o t e n tit le dto fu r th e rre lie f. W e n e e dn o t d e te r m in e w h e th e rth e d o c tr in e is
a p p l i ca b l e for a state cou rt con victi on a ft er A E D P Abe ca u se th e rem ed y inbo th fe d e r a l a n dT e x a s s ta te co u r ts fo rad e fe n d a n t s u b j e c t e dto m u ltip le puni s hm e nt s f

o rt he s am e c o nduc ti s t o a f f i r m t he co nvi c t i o n f

o rt he m o s ts e r i o us Case: 08-40450 Document: 00511076744 Page: 7 Date Filed: 04/12/2010N o. 08- 40450

S i m i l arl y, i n federalcourt , w h en a defenda n t i s i m properl y convic t ed f or 1 a l e s s e ri nc l ude d o f

fe ns e , w e h av e he l d t hatt he pr o pe rr e m e dyi s t o l e av e t he convic t i on an d s en t en ce f or t h e greaterof

fen se i n t actan d va cat e t h e convi ct i on a n ds e n te n c e o n th e le s s e rin c lu d e do ffe n s e . Un i t ed S t ate s v. B u ckley , 586 F. 2d 4 9 8 , 5 0 5 (5th C i r. 1 9 7 8 ). If th e inclu d ed con victi on s d o n ot l ea dthe tri a lcou rt t o i m pose a h arsher sentence t h an i tw ou l d h ave i n t h e absen ce of such con vi ct i on s, r e m a n d fo r r e s e n te n c in g is u n n e c e s s a r y . S e eid

. (c i t i ng Uni t e d St at e s v. Sl ut s ky , 4 8 7 F .2d 8 3 2 , 8 4 5 -4 6 n .18 (2d C ir. 1 9 7 3 )).
8 of fen se and vacate th e ot h er i n cl u ded convi ct i on s. See, e . g. , B igo n v. S ta te , 252 1 S

. W

. 3d 3 60, 3 72 (T ex. C ri m . A pp . 2 008 )

. T h e m ostser i ou s of fen se i s t h e of

fen se in w h ic h th e g r e a te s t s e n te n c e w a s a s s e s s e d

. I d. at 373
. D avis ’ s at t em pted
m ur de rc o nvi c t i o n c ar r i e d t he g r e at e s ts e nt e nc e . Thus , D av i s r e c e ive d t he
m axim u m ha beas rel i ef ava i l able w h en t h e di st ri ctcourtvacated his aggrav ated
a s s a u lt c o n v ic tio n . S eeS co tt , 9 3 4 F .2 d a t 6 3 3 ; Wi l l i a ms , 714 F. 2d at555- 56; D en n is , 5 4 8 F .2 da t 5 9 0 ; R ogers , 394 F. 2d at493. B ecau se t h e vacatur of t h e agg ravated assau l tconvi ct i on w as proper f or th e in s ta n t d o u b le je o p a r d yco n v i c t i o n , th e ju d g m e n t o f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t is AF F I RMED. Case: 08-40450 Document: 00511076744 Page: 8 Date Filed: 04/12/2010