P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shed an d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 40615 Su m m ar yC al endar

RA U L G AR ZA TA M EZ , Pet i t i o ne r - Appe l l ant

v. RI CK T HALER, DI RE CT O R, TEXAS D EP AR TM EN T O F CR I M I N AL J U STI CE, C O R R E C T IO N A L IN S T IT U T IO N S D IV IS IO N , R espon den t
- A pp el l ee
A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC 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

- 362

B ef ore R E AV L E Y , JO L L Yan d O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * R au lG arza T am ez, T exas p rison er # 7188 79, w as convi ct ed bya j u ry of
m u r d e ra n d s e n t e n c e db yth e ju r yto life im p r is o n m e n t. T a m e zv . S ta te , 205 S. W
. 3 d 3 2, 37 (Tex
. App. 20 06 )

. The di s t r i c tc o ur tde ni e d Ta m e z ha be as c o r pus rel i ef pu rsuan tt o 28 U
. S

. C

. § 2 2 5 4
. Th e di st ri ctcourtgran t ed T am ez a ce r t i f i c at e o f ap pe al ab i l i t y ( CO A) o n t he i s s ue s w he t he r t he s t at e t r i alcourt de pr ive d hi m o f

afai rt r i alb y al l ow i n g hi m t o b e t r i e d i n l e g r e s t r ai nt s a nd United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D September

10, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 40615

2 w h et h er c ou n selw as i n ef fect ive f or fai l i n g t o obj ect t o T am ez bei n g t ri ed i n l eg rest rai n t s. I n a ddit i o n t o a r gui ng t he i s s ue s a s t o w hi c h t he di s t r i c tc o ur tg r ant e d a CO A, Tam e z c o nt e nds t hatc o uns e lw as i ne f fe c t ive f

o rfai l i ng t o di s c overa nd present m i t i gati n g evi den ce; t h at t h e st ate t ri alcourtvi ol ated his F i rst A m en d m en t ri gh ts byall ow i n g e vid en ce of h i s ga n ga ffilia ti on ; tha t t h e sta te t r i alc our te rred by r em ovi ng pot ent i alj uro r s sua s pont e; and t hatt he Texas C our to f

Cr i m i na lAp p e a l s a c t e du nc o ns t i t ut i o na l l yb yd e ny i ngh i m an e v id e n tia r yh e a r in go n h is s ta te h a b e a s a p p lic a tio n . T h e re s p o n d e n t c o r r e c tly
n ot es t h at t h e di st ri ctcourtdi d n ot gran t a C O Aon these i ssues an d that Ta m ez di d no tm o ve i n hi s a ppe l l ant ’ s b r i e f f o ra n e xp ans i o n o f

t he CO A gr ant e d b y t he di s t r i c tc o ur t
. Ta m e z di d no tm o ve b e f o r e b r i e f

i ng f o rt hi s c o ur t t o e xp andt he g ra n t of C O A

. T a m e z re q u e sts e x p a n sio n o f th e g ra n t o f C O A in h is re p ly b rie f; th a t r e q u e s t is u n tim e lyfo ro u rco n s id e r a tio n . Se eUni t e d St at e s v . Wi l l i am s o n, 1 8 3 F .3 d4 5 8 , 4 6 4 n .1 1 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ); Un ite dS ta t e s v . Kim le r, 150 F. 3d 429, 4 3 1 & n .1 (5 th C ir. 1 9 9 8 ). Tam e z c o nt e nds t hathe w as de pr ive d o f afai rt r i albe c aus e he w as ke pt i n b o t h ha nd a nd l e g r e s t r ai nt s dur i ng t he e nt i r e t r i al
. Ac c o r di ng t o Tam e z , he
w as s e at e d a tt he e nd o f t he de fe ns e t ab l e w hi c h w as o pe n und e r ne at h, a l l o w i ng h i s l egs t o be seen. Th e st ate t ri alcourt t ook no precau t i on s bef ore Ta m ez t ook t h e st an d to m i t i gate t h e prej u di ce i n h erent i n T am ez’ s s h ackli n g at t ri al , such
as w rapp i n g t h e shack l es i n pl asti c ordi rect i n g T am e z to s it w h en t h e j u ry e nt e r e d t he r o o m i n ordert o a vo i d t he no i s e c r e at e d b y t he m o ve m e nto f t he sha ckl es. H e al l eges t h at t h ere w as an “excess ive T D C J [ T exas D epa rt m en tof C r i mi n a lJ u s t i c e ] d e t a i ls h a d o w i n g[h i s ] e v e r ym o v e , ” e v e n i n s i d e t h e c o u r t r o o m. H e fu r th e r c o n te n d s th a t h e w a s p r eju d ic e d b y b e in g s h a c k le d , p a r tic u la r l y in l i ghtof hi s def ens e o f s elf

- def ens e, and ar gues t hatt he e vi denc e a gai nsthi m w as n o t su ffic ie n tly o v e r w h e lm in g to r e n d e r th e s ta te c o u r t’s e r r o r h a r m le s s . H e ar gue s t hatc o uns e lw as i ne f fe c t ive f o rfai l i ng t o o bj e c tt o t he s hac kl i ng, a nd h eN o. 08- 40615

3 al l eges th a tc ounse lhad a di si nce nt ive t o o bj ec tbe c ause s he w as em pl oye d by T D C J an dad h ere dto a T D C J po l i cyi n stea dof ob j ectingto i t. T a m ez all eg es in h i s ap p ell a n t’ s br i ef t h a t he w ore restra i n ts aro u n dbo th h is le g s a n dh a n d s d u r in gtr ia l. H e d idn o t a lle g e in th e d is tr ic t c o u r t t h a t h is h an ds w ere r est rai n ed d u ri n g t ri al
. Th i s c ou rtdoes not gen e ra ll y consi der h a b e a s a r g u m e n ts ra is e dfo rth e fir s t t im e o n a p p e a l. S ee Hen d er so n v. Co ck re ll, 333 F
. 3d 592 , 605 ( 5th C i r. 2 003 ) (decl i n i n g t o a dd ress cl ai m rais ed f or t h e f i rst tim e ina n a p p e ll a te C O Am o tion ). W e cann otdeter m i n e f rom t h e rec ord w h at fac t u alf i n di n gs w ere nec es sa r i l y de c i ded byi m pl i c at i on i n T am ez ’ s st at e habe a s c or pus pr oc ee di ng. Cf. V a ld ezv. Co ck re ll , 2 74 F. 3d9 41 , 9 48 n. 11 ( 5t h Ci r . 200 1) ( s t at i ng t hatt he § 2 254( e) ( 1) pre sum pt i on of c or r ec t nes s ext ends t o e xpl i c i tand i m pl i c i tf i ndi ngs of fact w h i ch are n ecess ary t o t h e st ate c ou rt ’ s c on cl u si on s)

. H ow ever, t h e rec ord do e s no ti ndi c at e t hatTam e z ’ s s t at e ha be as c l ai m w as de ni e d b as e d o n a ny u n r e a s o n a b le a p p lic a tio n o f la w o ru n r e a s o n a b le fin d in go f fa c t. S ee § 2 2 5 4 (d)(1)& (2 ). “T h e la w h a s lo n g fo rb id d e n r o u tin e u s e o f v is ib le s h a c k le s d u r in gth e g u ilt pha s e [ o f

at r i al] ; i tpe r m i t s aSt at e t o s hac kl e ac r i m i nalde fe nda ntonl y i n t he p rese n ce of a sp ecial ne ed
. ” D ec k v. Miss o u ri, 5 44 U
. S

. 6 22 , 6 26 ( 20 05 )

. The
s a m e is t r u e d u r in gth e p e n a ltyp h a s e in aca p ita l tr ia l. I d. at632- 33. A t r i al court m ay, how ever, requi re a defen da n tt o w ear res t rai n t s if t h e t ri alcourt d e e m s it n e c e s s a r yto p r o te c t t h e co u r t a n dth e co u r tr o o m . I d. at 632. Th e t r i al
c o u r t m u s t ta k e in to a c c o u n t th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f th e p a r tic u la rca s e . Id
. The S u prem e C ou rtrec ogn i zes t h at “ [t ] h ere w i l lbe cases
. . . w h ere t h ese peri l s of sh a ck lin g a re u n a vo i d a b l e.” I d. W h en deter m i n i n g w h et h er a vi ol ati on occurred, t h i s c ou rtconsi ders an y “ st eps t o m i t i gate anyprej u di ci ali n f l u en ce on th e j u ry . ” Ch a v ezv. Co ck re ll, 3 1 0 F .3d 8 0 5 , 8 0 9 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). O n c ol l at er alrev i ew of a s t at e c onvi c t i on, a f ede r alc our tw i l lgr anthabeas rel i ef on l y w h en t h e u se of rest rai n t s “ h ad a sub st an t i al an d i nj u ri ou s ef fectorN o. 08- 40615

4 i n fl u en c e in d eterm i n i n g th e j u ry ’ s ve rd i ct. ” Hat t e n v . Q uar t e r m an, 570 F. 3d 5 9 5 , 6 0 4 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 9 ) (c it a tion s a n din te rn a l qu o ta tion m a rk s o m itted ). O verw h el m i n g evi den ce of a defen da n t ’ s g u i l tm ay be su f f i ci en tt o render h a r m le s s a n ye r r o rin s h a c k lin gad e fe n d a n t. Id
. M or eo ver , a j ury’ s know l edge t h at a defen da n tal readyis a convi ct ed p ri soner m ay be a fact or t o consi der w h en a d d r e s s in gw h e th e ras h a c k lin ge r r o ris h a r m le s s . S ee Wi lkerson v. W h i t ley, 16 F .3 d6 4 , 6 8 (5 th C ir .), rei n st ate di n re levan tpa rt , 28 F. 3d 498, 509 ( 5t h C i r . 1994) (en b a n c). Iti s un di spu t ed that Ta m ez w as a convic t ed pri soner on tri alf or a m u rder
c o m m itt e din p r is o n a n dth a t s e v e r a l o th e rco n v ic te dp r is o n e r s t e s t i fie da t h is tri a l
. P ri son er/w i tn e s s O sca r C a rra n za -- w h ose aff i d a vit a p p ea rs i n the state court recor d-- c o nc e de d thats o m e o f tho s e o t he rpri soner/w i t n esses properl y w ere w eari n g rest rai n t s. A ny er r orb y t he s t at e t r i alc our ti n havi ng Tam ez s hackl ed dur i ng t r i al
w as ha r m l e s s . The j ur y kne w t hat Tam e z w as apr i s o ne ra c c us e d o f c o m m i t t i ng a cr im e in p r is o n . Se eWi lke rs o n, 16 F. 3d at 68
. Addi t i o nal l y, t h e evi den ce a g a in s t T a m e z w a s o v e r w h e lm in g . H e ch a s e d h is v ic tim a n db e a t h im
r e pe at e dl y i n f

r o nt o f num e r o us e ye w i t ne s s e s , e ve n b e at i ng t he v i c t i m a f t e rhe fel l
. T am ez does not denyt h at he beat t h e vi ct i m . Th e vi ct i m w as ha n dcu f fed at t h e t i m e an d could not possibl y h ave i n f l i ct ed i nj u ry o n T am ez, no m att er w hatt hr e at s he m ayha ve m ad e . The j ur y al s o c o ul d ha ve i nfe r r e d f r o m t he
e v id e n c e th a t T a m ez de lib era te lyfo o le da n in e x p e r ie n c e dg u a r din to p la c in gh im in th e v ic tim ’ s ce ll, w h e r e h e co u ldla yin w a i tfo rt h e v ic tim ’ s re tu r n . S ee T a m ez, 2 0 5 S .W .3d at 35-36. I n l i gh tof t h e st rength of t h e evi den ce agai n st Tam e z a nd t he j ur y’ s knowl e ge t hatT am e z w as a l r e ad y a pr i s o ne r , a ny vi e w i ng o f Tam e z ’ s l e g r e s t r ai nt s b y t he j ur y w o ul d notha ve s ubs t ant i al l y i nf l ue nc e d t he
v e r d ic t. S ee Hatt en , 570 F. 3d at604. To pre vai lon an i nef

fec t ive as si st ance c l ai m , a de fendantm usts how “ t hat
coun sel ’ s perf

orm an ce w as def

i ci en t” an d “ t h at t h e def i ci en tperf

orm an ceN o. 08- 40615

5 p reju d ic ed the de fen se.” S tr ic k la n dv . W a s h ing to n , 4 6 6 U .S

. 6 6 8 , 6 8 7 (19 8 4 ). T h e d e fi c ie n c yp r o n gr e q u ir e s th a tad e fe n d a n ts h o w th a th is “c o u n s e l’s rep rese n tati on fellb elow a n o b j ective sta n d a rdof rea son a b l en ess . ” I d. at688. U n d e rth e p r eju d ic e p r o n g , th e d e fe n d a n t m u s t s h o w th a t t h e r e is are a s o n a b le pr o ba bi l i t y t hat , b utf o rc o uns e l ’ s de f

i c i e ntpe r f

o r m anc e , t he r e s ul to f t he pr o c e e di ng w o ul d hav e be e n di f fe r e nt , and t hatco uns e l ’ s e r r o r s w e r e s o s e r i o us th a t t h e yre n d e r e dth e p r o c e e d in g s u n fa iro rt h e r e s u lt u n r e lia b le
. Lockhar tv. Fr e tw e ll, 50 6 U
. S. 3 64 , 3 73 ( 19 93 )

. A c o ur tne e d no ta ddr e s s b o t h de f i c i e nt perf orm an ce and prej u di ce i f t h e defen da n tfai l s t o m ak e a suf f i ci en tshow i n g on e ith e r o f th e m . S tr ic k la n d, 466 U
. S

. a t6 97. F or the sam e reason s t h at Ta m ez can n otdem on st rat e t h at he w as prej u di ced by being tr i ed w eari ng l e g r e s t r ain t s, h e ca n n ot d em on strate tha t he w a s p reju d i ced bycou n sel’ s all eg ed fa i l u re to obj ectt o hi m bei n g t ri ed i n t h ose r est rai n t s. AF F I RMED.