Court Opinion

ID: 9391047
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-29 00:01:15.189194+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:39.018494
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50335         Document: 00516731214             Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/28/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 22-50335
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                                  April 28, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   Trevor Aaron Baugh,                                                                 Clerk

                                                                    Petitioner—Appellant,

                                             versus

   Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
   Correctional Institutions Division,

                                                Respondent—Appellee.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                                USDC No. 7:21-CV-121
                      ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Trevor Aaron Baugh, Texas prisoner # 02134262, appeals the denial
   of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application challenging his jury-trial conviction and
   sentence for robbery. He contends that the district court erred by denying

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50335     Document: 00516731214           Page: 2   Date Filed: 04/28/2023

                                    No. 22-50335

   on the merits his claim that his attorney rendered ineffective assistance
   during his plea hearing.
          As this court did not grant a certificate of appealability on Baugh’s
   claim that his due process rights were violated by Texas habeas laws and
   procedures, we lack jurisdiction to consider it. See United States v. Alaniz,
   5 F.4th 632, 635 (5th Cir. 2021). We need not decide whether the Texas
   Court of Criminal Appeals denied Baugh’s state habeas claim on the merits
   such that 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) applies because Baugh’s claim fails even under
   de novo review. See Ward v. Stephens, 777 F.3d 250, 256 (5th Cir. 2015).
          Contrary to Baugh’s contention, he is required to show both that
   counsel performed deficiently and that Baugh was prejudiced by that
   deficient performance. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 689-94
   (1984); Beets v. Scott, 65 F.3d 1258, 1265-72 & n.8 (5th Cir. 1995) (en banc)
   (holding that presumption of prejudice under Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S.
   335, 348 (1980), applies only to cases involving counsel’s representation of
   multiple clients with adverse interests). Since the plea-hearing transcript
   reasonably may be understood to indicate that Baugh maintained that he was
   innocent of committing robbery, his attorney did not perform deficiently by
   failing to advocate more forcefully for the acceptance of the plea offer at
   issue. See Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156, 162-63 (2012). Nor does Baugh’s
   trial testimony establish prejudice by showing that he would have been willing
   to plead guilty to robbery under the plea offer; at trial, he admitted only to
   having committed acts sufficient to support a conviction for theft, not
   robbery. See id. at 163; Howard v. State, 333 S.W. 3d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim.
   App. 2011) (holding that, to commit robbery, defendant must be “aware that
   his conduct is reasonably certain to place someone in fear” of imminent
   bodily harm).
          AFFIRMED.

                                             2