IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-40552

Summary Calendar

TIMOTHY LEE MULLINS,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

WILLIAM STEPHENS, 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. 6:11-CV-318

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Timothy Lee Mullins, Texas prisoner # 1530696, appeals the dismissal of

his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, in which he challenged his conviction and life

sentence for murder. Mullins challenges the district court’s denial of relief on

his claims that (1) trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to

investigate his mental health history and in abandoning the insanity defense at

trial, (2) trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to present any

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 18, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* 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.

 Case: 12-40552 Document: 00512413902 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/18/2013
No. 12-40552

mitigating evidence at the punishment phase, (3) he was denied due process

when the trial court did not appoint a psychiatrist for the defense, and (4) his

appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to raise on appeal the

issue that the trial court abused its discretion in not appointing a psychiatrist

for the defense. To the extent that Mullins also raises the issues that his counsel

rendered ineffective assistance in failing to challenge his confession and in

failing to object to prosecutorial misconduct, the issues are beyond the scope of

the certificate of appealability, and this court lacks jurisdiction to consider them. 

See Simmons v. Epps, 654 F.3d 526, 535 (5th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct.

2374 (2012). 

In reviewing the denial of § 2254 relief, this court reviews issues of law de

novo and findings of fact for clear error, applying the same deference to the state

courts’ decision as the district court under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death

Penalty Act. Ortiz v. Quarterman, 504 F.3d 492, 496 (5th Cir. 2007). Because

the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ rejection of Mullins’s claims of ineffective

assistance of trial and appellate counsel was not contrary to and did not involve

an unreasonable application of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687

(1984), and did not involve “an unreasonable determination of the facts in light

of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding,” the district court did

not err in denying Mullins habeas relief on these claims. § 2254(d); see also

Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770, 787-89 (2011). The district court also did

not err in denying relief on Mullins’s claim that the state trial court violated due

process in not appointing a psychiatrist for the defense pursuant to Ake v.

Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 76 (1985). See § 2254(d); Woodward v. Epps, 580 F.3d

318, 332 (5th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 12-40552 Document: 00512413902 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/18/2013