Opinion ID: 25782
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to introduce mitigating evidence

Text: Burns first argues that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to introduce evidence that his brother, Victor Burns, entered a plea of guilty to the offense in question. Petitioner contends that this information would have been relevant mitigating evidence to be used during the punishment phase. Texas case law did not permit Burns to introduce this evidence in mitigation. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has stated the following: “We do not see how the conviction and punishment of a co-defendant could mitigate appellant’s culpability in the crime. Each defendant should be judged by his own conduct and participation and by his own circumstances.” Evans v. State, 656 S.W.2d 65, 67 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983). See also Cordova v. Johnson, 157 F.3d 380, 383-84 (5th Cir. 1998). Burns argues further that even if his co-defendant’s sentence would not be relevant mitigating evidence, his codefendant’s conviction would. The language of Evans, cited above, 10 See Miller, 200 F.3d at 281. 4 however, makes it clear that this argument fails as well. In Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 98 S.Ct. 2954 (1978), the Supreme Court held that the sentencer can generally consider as a mitigating factor “any aspect of the defendant’s character or record and any of the circumstances of the offense that the defendant proffers as a basis for a sentence less than death.” Id. at 604, 98 S.Ct. at 2965. Burns argues that his brother’s guilty plea judicially establishes that he was the “triggerman” and that, despite the Texas case-law cited above, his attorney should have proffered this evidence because it is a relevant “circumstance of the offense.” This argument is without merit. Victor Burns plea stated that he “...intentionally and knowingly cause[d] the death of an individual, Johnny Lynn Hamlett, by shooting him with a gun....” No evidence was offered in support of Victor Burns’ conviction, and it is unclear whether Victor caused the death as a principal or as an accomplice. The state was entitled to obtain the conviction without showing that Victor was the triggerman. The plea does not therefore “judicially establish” that Victor Burns was the sole “triggerman.” Additionally, counsel had very good reason for not attempting to make such an argument. In William Burns’ statement to the police, he admitted that he shot the victim. (“I took the pistol out and I shot through the crack. There were only two bullets in the pistol and I shot them.”) Because an attorney cannot be ineffective for failing to raise 5 meritless objections,11 petitioner’s trial counsel did not perform deficiently in failing to raise either of the above arguments. We cannot, therefore, say that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to introduce this evidence, and the district court was correct in reaching this conclusion.12