Opinion ID: 761794
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The State Habeas Corpus Proceeding Claim

Text: 18 Trevino next claims that he is entitled to a COA to appeal the district court's denial of his habeas claim relating to his state habeas proceeding. Specifically, Trevino argues that he was denied due process in his state habeas proceeding because the state habeas court adopted the district attorney's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law only three hours after they were filed with the court. 19 We cannot grant Trevino a COA on this issue. Our circuit precedent makes clear that Trevino's claim fails because infirmities in state habeas proceedings do not constitute grounds for relief in federal court. Hallmark v. Johnson, 118 F.3d 1073, 1080 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, Johnson v. Monroe, --- U.S. ----, 118 S.Ct. 576, 139 L.Ed.2d 415 (1997); see Nichols v. Scott, 69 F.3d 1255, 1275 (5th Cir.1995) (An attack on a state habeas proceeding does not entitle the petitioner to habeas relief in respect to his conviction, as it is an attack on a proceeding collateral to the detention and not the detention itself.) (internal quotation marks omitted); Duff-Smith v. Collins, 973 F.2d 1175, 1182 (5th Cir.1992) (same); Millard v. Lynaugh, 810 F.2d 1403, 1410 (5th Cir.1987) (same); Vail v. Procunier, 747 F.2d 277, 277 (5th Cir.1984) (denying petitioner a certificate of probable cause because [i]nfirmities in state habeas corpus proceedings do not constitute grounds for federal habeas relief). Other circuits have similarly decided that habeas corpus relief is not available to correct alleged errors in state habeas proceedings. See, e.g., Jolly v. Gammon, 28 F.3d 51, 54 (8th Cir.1994); Franzen v. Brinkman, 877 F.2d 26, 26 (9th Cir.1989); Bryant v. Maryland, 848 F.2d 492, 493 (4th Cir.1988); Spradley v. Dugger, 825 F.2d 1566, 1568 (11th Cir.1987); Kirby v. Dutton, 794 F.2d 245, 247 (6th Cir.1986). But see Dickerson v. Walsh, 750 F.2d 150, 153 (1st Cir.1984) (allowing a federal habeas claim relating to a state court habeas proceeding). 20 The Eighth Circuit has specifically considered and rejected the issue that Trevino raises for appeal. See Jolly, 28 F.3d at 54. In that case, the petitioner claimed that he was deprived of due process when the state habeas court adopted the state's proposed findings of fact and law verbatim. See id. The Eighth Circuit found that the petitioner could not raise that claim in federal court on his § 2254 petition because it did not raise an error of a constitutional magnitude and was collateral to the petitioner's detention and not a constitutional challenge of the detention itself. Id. Trevino's claim, in which he alleges errors in his state habeas proceedings, must similarly fail. We therefore decline to issue Trevino a COA on this issue.C. The Underlying State-Court Conviction Claims 21 Finally, Trevino presents four issues for review related to the punishment phase of his state trial--first, that the jury instruction was deficient; second, that the state court erred by refusing to allow Trevino to ask jurors about their ability to consider youth as a potentially mitigating factor; third, that the state failed to disclose certain documents; and fourth, that the state court erred in finding a document inadmissible. 3 22 Trevino's petition for habeas relief in the state trial court raised each of these issues. On each issue, the state trial court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law, recommending to the Court of Criminal Appeals that it should deny relief. The Court of Criminal Appeals denied relief, explicitly basing its decision on the findings of the trial court. This explicit denial of relief by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals of Trevino's claims qualifies as an adjudication on the merits entitled to deference under AEDPA. See Davis v. Johnson, 158 F.3d 806, 812 (5th Cir.1998); Drinkard, 97 F.3d at 768 (finding no question that a claim was adjudicated on the merits in state court proceedings where state trial court entered explicit findings later adopted by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in denying relief); cf. Green v. Johnson, 116 F.3d 1115, 1120-21 (5th Cir.1997) (stating that the question of whether a state-court adjudication was a resolution on the merits, the pre-AEDPA equivalent of an adjudication on the merits, turns solely on whether the state court's disposition was substantive or procedural, and does not depend on the quality of a court's review of claims). 23 Under the AEDPA deference scheme, pure questions of law and mixed questions of law and fact are reviewed under § 2254(d)(1), and questions of fact are reviewed under § 2254(d)(2). See Corwin v. Johnson, 150 F.3d 467, 471 (5th Cir.1998); Drinkard, 97 F.3d at 767-68. When reviewing a purely legal question, we must defer to the state court unless its decision rested on a legal determination that was contrary to clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court. See Lockhart v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 54, 57 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1123, 117 S.Ct. 2518, 138 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1997); Drinkard, 97 F.3d at 768. Additionally, a federal court will not disturb a state court's application of law to facts unless the state court's conclusions involved an 'unreasonable application' of clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court. Davis, 158 F.3d at 812 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)); see Lockhart, 104 F.3d at 57. An application of federal law is unreasonable only when it can be said that reasonable jurists considering the question would be of one view that the state court ruling was incorrect. Drinkard, 97 F.3d at 769; see Davis, 158 F.3d at 812; Corwin, 150 F.3d at 471-72. State factual findings are presumed to be correct unless rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. See Davis, 158 F.3d at 812; Jackson v. Johnson, 150 F.3d 520, 524 (5th Cir.1998). 24 With this deference standard in mind, we consider whether Trevino has raised a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right with respect to his underlying state-court conviction.
25 Trevino argues that the trial court erred in refusing his request to instruct the punishment-phase jury that it could consider his social history and background, age, immaturity, or any other extenuating circumstances in determining his appropriate sentence. Trevino also claims that the jury instructions improperly precluded the jury from considering mitigating factors in determining the proper punishment. Specifically, Trevino objects to a portion of the jury instruction, which read, During your deliberations, you shall not consider or discuss what the effect of your answer to the above issues may be. 26 The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals found that this claim had no merit, adopting the trial court's finding that the punishment phase jury instruction did not prevent the jury from giving effect to any potentially mitigating testimony. The court found that the trial judge specifically told the jury before the punishment-phase deliberations: You are instructed in answering the issues submitted to you, you may take into consideration all of the facts shown by the evidence admitted before you in the full trial of this case. The state habeas court reasoned that this instruction, together with the jury instruction taken as a whole, allowed the jury to consider any evidence admitted in the trial--including any evidence concerning Trevino's age, his social history and background, his immaturity, or any other extenuating circumstances. In addition, the court noted that the instruction given to the jury in this case was similar to the instruction upheld by the Supreme Court in Johnson v. Texas, 509 U.S. 350, 368, 113 S.Ct. 2658, 125 L.Ed.2d 290 (1993); in each, the jury was explicitly told it could take into consideration any evidence admitted in the trial. The state court concluded that the jury instruction did not prevent consideration of any mitigating factors in fashioning an appropriate sentence, and that the jury instructions were therefore not deficient. 27 We find that Trevino has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right on this issue. The relevant question, as the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals noted, is  'whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the challenged instruction in a way that prevents the consideration of constitutionally relevant evidence.'  Johnson, 509 U.S. at 367-68, 113 S.Ct. 2658 (quoting Boyde v. California, 494 U.S. 370, 380, 110 S.Ct. 1190, 108 L.Ed.2d 316 (1990)). The state court's conclusion that, given the trial court's explicit instruction to consider all evidence in determining the proper sentence and the instruction taken as a whole, there was no reasonable likelihood that the jury was foreclosed from considering any mitigating evidence is not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court. See Green v. Johnson, 160 F.3d 1029, 1043-44 (5th Cir.1998) (denying certificate of probable cause to applicant seeking to appeal district court's denial of habeas relief on jury instruction issue because applicant did not demonstrate any likelihood that jury was prevented from considering mitigating evidence during punishment-phase sentencing); Tucker v. Johnson, 115 F.3d 276, 281-82 (5th Cir.1997) (denying certificate of probable cause on jury instruction issue because jury was not foreclosed from considering mitigating evidence). We therefore decline to issue Trevino a COA on this issue.
28 Trevino next argues that the trial court erred in refusing to allow him to inquire during voir dire whether three prospective jurors were able to consider youth as a potentially mitigating factor. Trevino contends that youth is a relevant mitigating factor of great weight, Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104, 116, 102 S.Ct. 869, 71 L.Ed.2d 1 (1982), and that under Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719, 112 S.Ct. 2222, 119 L.Ed.2d 492 (1992), the trial court's refusal to allow him to question the jurors regarding youth violated his due process rights. 29 The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals found no merit to this contention for three principal reasons. First, it noted that it had already considered and rejected this argument on Trevino's direct appeal, where it had found that Trevino's attempt to question the venirepersons amounted to an attempt to bind the jurors to consider youth as a mitigating factor without informing them of the applicable law. Second, the state court found that, in fact, the trial court had allowed Trevino to inquire whether these venirepersons could consider youth as a mitigating factor. Third, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals found that Morgan v. Illinois only required a court to allow inquiry during voir dire regarding whether jurors would, as a matter of course, impose the death penalty after finding a defendant guilty of a capital crime, and did not require inquiry into whether possible jurors could consider individual extenuating circumstances to be mitigating. 30 We find that Trevino does not raise a substantial showing of a constitutional right with regard to this issue. To begin with, Trevino has not presented any evidence that suggests that he was not able to inquire whether each venireperson at issue would consider youth to be a mitigating factor. Even if Trevino were to contend that he was not allowed sufficient voir dire regarding potential jurors' views on youth as a mitigating factor, the state habeas court's application of Morgan v. Illinois was not unreasonable. This circuit has previously stated that Morgan only involves the narrow question of whether, in a capital case, jurors must be asked whether they would automatically impose the death penalty upon conviction of the defendant. United States v. Greer, 968 F.2d 433, 437 n. 7 (5th Cir.1992) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. McVeigh, 153 F.3d 1166, 1208 (10th Cir.1998) ([W]e have held that Morgan does not require a court to allow questions regarding how a juror would vote during the penalty phase if presented with specific mitigating factors. Other courts have issued similar rulings, holding that Morgan does not require questioning about specific mitigating or aggravating factors.) (citation omitted); United States v. McCullah, 76 F.3d 1087, 1113 (10th Cir.1996) (finding that Morgan only requires questioning during voir dire regarding whether jurors would automatically impose the death penalty, and it does not require specific questioning regarding mitigating factors), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1213, 117 S.Ct. 1699, 137 L.Ed.2d 825 (1997); United States v. Tipton, 90 F.3d 861, 879 (4th Cir.1996) (finding it was not an abuse of the trial court's discretion to refuse to allow detailed questioning during voir dire concerning specific mitigating factors), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1253, 117 S.Ct. 2414, 138 L.Ed.2d 179 (1997), and cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1253, 117 S.Ct. 2414, 138 L.Ed.2d 179 (1997), and cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1253, 117 S.Ct. 2414, 138 L.Ed.2d 179 (1997). After applying the AEDPA-mandated standard of review to these state-court findings and conclusions, we cannot say that Trevino has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right on this issue. We therefore decline to issue Trevino a COA on this issue.
31 In his third claim relating to his underlying state-court conviction, Trevino argues that the State of Texas suppressed records material to the punishment phase of the trial in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). Specifically, Trevino maintains that the state refused to disclose material records regarding Trevino's upbringing in the possession of the Harris County Independent School District, Child Protective Services, and the Texas Youth Council. 32 The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals rejected Trevino's Brady contention on the basis of specific findings. First, the court found that Trevino either had possession of the allegedly suppressed records or that he could have obtained them through the exercise of reasonable diligence. 4 Second, the court found that the allegedly suppressed records were not material. 5 Therefore, the court found that Trevino was not entitled to relief under Brady. 33 Trevino is not entitled to a COA on this issue because he cannot overcome the deference we must afford these state-court findings under AEDPA. To prevail on a Brady claim, Trevino must show that the evidence was suppressed by the prosecution; that the evidence was favorable to the defense; and that the evidence was material. See id. at 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194. Whether documents must be produced and whether they are material under Brady is a mixed question of law and fact. See Brown v. Cain, 104 F.3d 744, 750 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1195, 117 S.Ct. 1489, 137 L.Ed.2d 699 (1997); Kennedy, 54 F.3d at 682. Given this standard, we cannot say that the state habeas court's application of Brady was unreasonable. Trevino has made no attempt to rebut the presumption of correctness we must afford the state court's findings that Trevino could have obtained all of the information at issue with reasonable diligence and that the records were not material. The state court's conclusion that the prosecution had no Brady obligation to produce these records for Trevino is therefore not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. See Lucas v. Johnson, 132 F.3d 1069, 1082 (5th Cir.1998) (denying habeas relief on Brady issue because petitioner presented no convincing evidence that casts doubt on the state court's factual findings); Brown, 104 F.3d at 749 (finding no Brady violation where habeas applicant presented no evidence rebutting state habeas court's finding that relevant evidence was not exculpatory). We find that Trevino has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right on this issue, and we therefore deny Trevino's request for a COA.
34 Trevino's last claim relating to his underlying state-court conviction challenges an evidentiary ruling of the state trial court. During the punishment phase of his trial, the court ruled that a report that Trevino's counsel attempted to introduce was inadmissible hearsay. Trevino claims that the report, prepared by an educational psychologist who had examined him, found that he had limited judgment and possible impulsivity, issues he claims could have been considered in the punishment phase of his trial. 35 Trevino does not argue that the trial court's evidentiary ruling deprived him of a constitutional right; his argument to this court is simply that the trial court's ruling incorrectly excluded evidence relevant to the punishment phase of his trial. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied this claim, finding that any error by the trial court in its evidentiary ruling was subject to harmless-error review and that because Trevino had not alleged that the ruling had an injurious effect on his sentence, he was not entitled to habeas relief. 36 [I]t is not the province of a federal habeas court to reexamine state-court determinations on state-law questions. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68, 112 S.Ct. 475, 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991). A petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief due to trial error unless  'the error had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's [sentence].'  Corwin, 150 F.3d at 476 (quoting Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637-38, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993)) (further internal quotation marks omitted). Trevino has not presented any evidence to rebut the state habeas court's finding that he failed to allege that the evidentiary ruling had an injurious effect on his sentence. Indeed, he only argues to this court that the report was relevant. The state habeas court's conclusion that he was not entitled to habeas relief is therefore not an unreasonable application of federal law as determined by the Supreme Court, and we decline to grant Trevino a COA on this issue. See id. at 476-77 (denying petitioner a COA on evidentiary issue because admission did not have a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict) (internal quotation marks omitted).