P u rsuan tt o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, the court ha s d et erm i n ed t h at thi s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shedan d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e li 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 UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCUIT

N o. 08- 40090 Su m m ar y Cal endar
KE NNET H S I E L I NI CO M N Pet i t i o ne r - Appe l l ant
v. RI CK T HALER, DI RE CT O R, TEXAS D EPAR TM EN T O F CR I M I NALJ U STI CE, 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 pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or th e E aster n D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 6: 06- C V
- 440

B ef ore JO N E S , C h i ef

Ju dg e, an d D AV IS an d W IE N E R , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IAM: * P et i t i on er- ap pel l an tK en n et h S i e L i n i com n (“ L i n i com n ” ) , T exas pri soner #12 834 39, w as f

ou n d gu i l t y of

pos s e s s io n o f

ac o ntr o ll ed su bstance an d sen t en ced as a repeat of

fen der t o 20 yea rs i n pri son. H e f il ed a 28 U . S . C . § 225 4 petit i on chal l engi ng t hi s c onvi c t i on, ar gui ng t hatt r i alc ounse lr ender ed i nef fec t ive United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I LE D December

22, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 40090

2 assi st an ce by not rai si n g a h earsay obj ect i on t o t h e State’ s t est if yi n g exp ertor la b re p o r t e v id e n c e . DI S CU S S I ON L i n i com n w as convic t ed of possessi n g crack- cocai n e. Al ab report show ed t hatt he s ubs t anc e i n Li ni c o m n’ s po s s e s s i o n was c o c ai ne . Du ri n g t r i al , t he or i gi nall ab t ec hni c i an w ho ra n th e t es t , R uben R endon (“R endon” ) , w as unavai l abl e. I nst ead, hi s supervi si ng t ec hni c i an, Lynet t e J onas - Feuqu ay (“Jones
- Feuqu ay” ) , t es t if i ed t o the l ab r epo r t ’ s r esu l ts. T he l ab r epo r tw as e n te r e din to e v id e n c e w ith o u t o bje c tio n . Foll ow ing exhau sti on of h i s state re m ed i es, L i n i com n petitioned f orf ede r al h a b ea s reli ef for d en i a l of a con stitu ti on a l ri gh t. T h i s cou rt gra n teda ce rtifica te of app eal abilit y on t h ree groun ds: 1. W he t he ra dm i s s i o n of t h e l ab r e po r tw i t ho utt he pr e s e nc e o f t he person w h o prepa red itvi ol ated his Sixth A m en dm en tri gh t s? 2 . Wh e t h e rT e x a s ’ s c o n t e mp o r a n e o u s o bj e c t i o n r u l e b a r s L i n i c o mn f r o m r a i s i n gaC o n f

r o n t a t i o n C l a u s e c l a i m? 3. W het herLi ni c om n’ s c ounse lpr ovi ded i nadequat e assi st anceby fa il in gto r a is e ah e a r s a yo bje c t io n to b o t h J o n a s -F e u q u a y ’s testi m on y a n dthe i n trod u cti on of R en d on ’ s l a b rep ort? In his bri ef, L i n i com n conced e s th at Texa s’ s c on t em poran eou s obj ect i on rul e procedu ral ly bars him f rom rai si n g a S ixth A m en dm en tcl ai m . Th eref ore, t h e onl y rem ai n i n g i ssue i s w h et h er h i s coun sel rend ered i n ad equ ate ass i st an ce b yfa il in gto r a is e h e a r s a yo bje c t io n s to J o n a s-F e u q u a y ’ s te s t im o n ya n dR e n d o n ’s la b re p o r t. In effective a ssist a n ce of cou n sel i s a m ixe dqu estionof l a w an dfa ct. S tricklan dv. W

ash i ngt on , 466 U . S . 668 , 698 ( 198 4) . Apetit i on er m u st de m o ns t r at e t w o t hi ngs : ( 1) t hatc o uns e l ’ s pe r f o r m anc e w as de f

i c i e nt , a nd (2 ) th a t t h e d e fic ie n t p e r fo r m a n c e p r eju d ic e d h is d e fe n s e . St r i c kland , 4 66 U . S. a t 6 8 7 . C o u r ts m u s t “ in d u lg e as tr o n gp r e s u m p tio n th a t c o u n s e l’ s c o n d u c t fa lls w i t hi n t he w i de r ang e o f r e as o nab l e pr o fe s s i o nala ssi s t anc e , ” a nd ade fe nda ntN o. 08- 40090

3 m u st overcom e t h e presum pti on t h at th e “ cha l l en gedact i on m i gh tbe consi dered sou n dstrateg y.” Id . T o d em on st r at e pr ej udi c e, pet i t i onerm usts how t hat

“ c ounse l ’ s er r or s w er e sos er i ous as t o de prive t he def endantof

a fai rt r i al , a t r i al w h ose resu l t i s reli a b l e.” I d. T h e T e x a s C o u r t o f C r im in a l A p p e a ls h a s d e n ie dL in ic o m n ’ s cla im ; c ons equent ly, Li ni c om n c annot obt ai n f ede r alhabeas c or pus r eli ef unl es s he c an sho w thatthe s t at e co urt ’ s adj udi c at i on of thatcl ai m res ul t ed i n a dec i si on t hat w a s co n tr a r yto e s ta b lis h e dfe d e r a l la w . S ee R id d le v . Co ck re ll , 2 8 8 F. 3d 713, 7 1 6 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ), cer t . den i ed537 U . S . 953 ; 28 U . S . C . § 22 54(d) ( 1) . H ow ever, even un der d e novo r e v ie w , L in ic o m n ’ s p e tit io n fa ils . F i rst , L i n i com n fai l s t o rebut th e presum pti on t h at hi s at t orney’ s deci si on n ott o rai se hearsay objec t i on s c ou l d be part of a soun d st rat egy. Th e obj ect i on t o J onas - Feuqu ay’ s t es t i m ony w oul d l i kel y h a ve fail ed. Jo nas- Feuqu ay i s an exp erti n her ow n ri gh tan d of fered her ow n expert opi n i on . Th e T exas C ou rtof Cri m i nalAppe al s ha s he l d that t he t e s t i m o ny o f an e xp e r t c he m i s tc o nc e r ni ng th e te s t r e s u lts o b ta in e db ya n o th e rch e m is t is n o t h e a r s a y . SeeMa rti n ez v. S ta te , 2 2 S. W . 3 d5 0 4 , 5 0 8 (Te x . Cr i m . Ap p . 2 0 0 0 ) (c i t i ng Ag u ila r v . S ta te , 887 S . W . 2d27, 29-30 (T ex. C ri m . A pp . 199 4) ) . I n deed , i n a pri or t ri alt h at r esul t ed i n m i s t r i al , Li ni c o m n’ s a t t o r ne y uns uc c e s s f ul ly r ai s e d ahe ar s ayo bj e c t i o n. S i m i l ar ly, w hil e t he l ab r e po r tm ayha veb e e n he ar s ay , itc o ul d ha ves urvived a he ar s ayo bj e c t i o n if t he St at e e nt e r e d itf o rt he l i m i t e d pur po s e o f s upp o r t i ng J o n a s -F e u q a y ’ s te s tim o n y . Agui lar , 8 8 7 S .W .2 da t 3 0 . F u r t h e r , e v e nif Li ni c om n’ s at t or ney c oul d have suc c es sf ul ly r ai se d hear sa y o bj ec t i ons , t r i al at t or neys of

t en w aive obj ec t i ons t o s c i ent if i cev i denc e a s suc h obj ec t i ons m ay a n ta g o n iz e ju r ie s a n dju d g e s . F in a lly , e v e n if L in ic o m n ’ s a tt o r n e ys u c c e s s fu lly o bje c te dto J o n a s -F e u q a y ’ s te s tim o n ya n dth e la b re p o r t, th e S ta te co u lds till c a ll R en d on to t estif

y. T h u s, th e attorn eyw ou l dh a ve obj ectedto n o p ositive eff ect: both the t est i m on y an d l ab report w ou l d st il lbe adm i t t ed an d t h e j u dg e an d j u ryN o. 08- 40090

4 m i ghtb eli eveLi ni c om n’ s at t or ney t o b e o bs t i nat e. Acc or di ngl y, Li ni c om n has n o t s h o w n th a t h is a tt o r n e y ’ s a c tio n s w e r e n o t p a r t o f ala r g e rs tr a te g y . S eco n d , L i n i com n fail s to d em on strate p reju d i ce a ga i n st h i m . In or d er to d em on strate pr ejud i ce, L i n i com n m u st sh ow th a t th e S tate w ou l dbe u n a b l e to i nt r o duc e t he s c i e nt if i ce vi de nc e t h at h e p os s e s s e d c o c ai ne . H e ha s m ad e no suc h show i ng. At m os t , Li ni c om n ca n dem on strate t hatt he l ab r epo r tw as h ea rsa y. N ev erth eless, the S tate co u l dstil lh a ve en teredthe l a b rep ort i n to evi denc e f

ort he li m i t ed pur pos e o f s upporti ng Jonas
- Feuqay’ s t es t i m on y. Agu i ler , 887 S. W . 2dat 30. Fu rt h er, t h e l ab repor t c o u l d als o be i n t rodu ced w i t ho utli m i t at i o n, b e c aus e t he St at e c o ul d c allRend o n t o t e s t if y. As s uc h, Li ni c o m n ha s no ts ho w n t hat , a bs e nthi s a t t o r ne y’ s s upp o s e d e r r o r , t he c o c ai ne e vi de nc e w o ul d no tb e i n t r o duc e d a nd the j ur y m i ghtha ver e ac he d adif fe r e nt o u tc o m e . CO NC L US I ON A s L i n i com n h as not show n eit h er th at hi s at t orney’ s deci si on const i t u t ed u n reasona bl e professi on al assi st an ce ort h at hi s at t orney’ s deci si on prej u di ced t h e o u t c o me o f

t h e t r i a l , t h e j u d g me n to f t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r td e n y i n gL i n i c o mn h a b e a s r e l i e f

i s A F F I RMED.