Prologue — Ward v. Dretke (No. 05-914)

f ‘ am , 4

f/ ) Suprems Cou. US.

, i? : cs

i 4 Be REE sone

hi asl -

WO sisal 5-914 cid y cud

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

In The

Supreme Court of the Gnited States

¢

BERNARD JAMES WARD, JR.,

Petitioner,

V.

DOUG DRETKE, DIRECTOR, TEXAS

DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,

Respondent.

4

On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari

To The United States Court Of Appeals

For The Fifth Circuit

¢

PETITION FOK WRIT OF CERTIORARI

*

DavipD L. BOTSFORD

Counsel of Record

LAW OFFICE OF

DaviD L. BOTSFORD

1307 West Ave.

Austin, Texas 78701

512-479-8030 (Tel)

512-479-8040 (Fax?

dbotsford@aol.com (E-Mail)

COCKLE LAW BRIEF PRINTING CO (800) 225 6964

OR CALL COLLECT | 402) 442-2831

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

For purposes of the Sixth Amendment’s right to effective

assistance of counsel, in determining whether “deficient

performance” is “prejudicial” in the context of a state

discretionary sentencing scheme in a non-capital case, is

the proper standard the “any amount of jail time” test

promulgated by this Court in Glover v. United States, 531

U.S. 198 (2001), as a clarification of Strickland v. Wash-

ington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), or the “significantly less

harsh” sentence test first announced by the Fifth Circuit

in Spriggs v. Collins, 993 F.2d 85 (5th Cir. 1993), and

applied in Petitioner’s case?

Is application of the Fifth Circuit’s “significantly less

harsh” sentence standard to determine that the state

court’s conclusion of “no prejudice” was not “objectively

unreasonable” inconsistent with its duty under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254(d)(1) to apply Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.

668 (1984), and Glover v. United States, 531 U.S. 198

(2001) as the “clearly established Federal law, as deter-

mined by the Supreme Court of the United States"?

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

QUESTIONS PRESENTED .................ccccccccecceceeeeeeeecees i

RE IG COREE ETL Snhitsinncsidoretiss snip indbwestinsineabcuntve ii

SAAR PE FRU TRE AIOE vac vnrsasceroseskpacinecenctdbeanansedors iv

Coe RNG I RUE SUC OF siricisibavcikcveocdinhransadetecssnckounaubcamiciias 1

PAE ITT wasccniictniniies testchnihininiasotstininrinbasmnaien 1

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS... 1

RAE NOES inscecpesetnnsinkcjecheustaaciahtbiablbdicie eicnia beams 2

Bre Ne tr CE Tine C6 ioe sciescdnvesckscccsccsepvivncicton 2

2. Detailed Statement Of The Case....................... 4

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT ...........0000..... 10

1. The Fifth Circuit’s “Significantly Less Harsh”

Sentence Test Conflicts With This Court’s De-

cisions In Strickland v. Washington and Glover

hs EE NUD i isiiia acs hcl cisia hasceaemeniwicnian

The Fifth Circuit’s “Significantly Less Harsh”

Sentence Test Conflicts With Decisions Of

Pete Frere Ce oii iscsi ces en bans

The Fifth Circuit Applied A Standard Of

Prejudice More Demanding Than That Applied

By The State Court And Aiso Violated Its Duty

To Apply “Clearly Established Federal law”

Under 28 U.S.C. § 22541) ..........ccccesescevesevsse

The Issues Appear To Be Of Nationwide

Significance In Federal And State Courts.........

CFE RA IOUIIEN tut ccssvucnciinconsuwulicstalubsinaniaidcenlendastaiueiseaes

10

18

ill

TABLE OF CONTENTS -— Continued

Page

Appendix A: Fifth Circuit Opinion ...................:.:00008 Al

Appendix B: Opinion Of United States District

Re eclithitelimairnsssbntolnadeio tected scan Bi

Appendix C: Fifth Circuit Opinion n Rehear-

NE i adhs chicennicindie i bckccododddciiessteaeinpinonst Cl

iv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

CASES

Burger v. Kemp, 483 U.S. 776 (1987) ..........:::ccccccccccsessessees 15

Caspari v. Bohlen, 510 U.S. 383 (1994) ..00.. eee 11

Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37 (1990) ......... eee 7

Commonwealth v. Brown, 711 A.2d 444 (Pa. 1998).......... 18

Crucean v. United States, 113 Fed.Appx. 171 (7th

it Ap © 5 RSE a Aa, fee HELA ROG Bm Bi se LEMON Sy PRN oa BT 19

Curry v. Palmateer, 62 Fed.Appx. 157 (9th Cir.

9, | INARI EB BP eof PON AR Sat RR ee BPN Aer de: TEA ahi oa 19

Daniel v. Cockrell, 283 F.3d 697 (5th Cir. 2002) .........0.0.0... 7

Durrive v. United States, 4 F.3d 548 (7th Cir. 1993)......... 19

Evans v. Thigpen, 809 F.2d 239 (5th Cir. 1987), cert.

Benmiod, GBS S75 TORS CUO I ss vccksiveibess keds eedstehpsetscnones 18

Evans v. State, 827 A.2d 157 (Md. App. 2003)............ 18, 24

Ex parte Duffy, 607 S.W.2d 507 (Tex. Crim. App.

ROU siircticecssndsd cicadh nis hitacliaprates. <apieidaep Maine 21

Ex parte Langley, 833 S.W.2d 141 (Tex. Crim. App. ;

ME ite Lauds tis s des okasd cb daaeions talcaby sven chieeinieenmecethina ts 21

Glover v. United States, 531 U.S. 198 (2001)............. passim

Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 (1993)...0....0. cece eee ee eee eee 7

Goodrich v. Smith, 643 F. Supp. 579 (N.D. NY.

BT seh oak desecsaspsdes vitom aaa deaious tanicaialindy alas tocicmacege cua. 19

Greenup v. State, 2002 WL 31246136 (Tenn. Crim.

PN I a ioocecdi nctelueiitcmeuedienesincakonnateriie 7, 24

Vv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES -— Continued

Page

Hernandez v. State, 988 S.W.2d 770 (Tex. Crim.

SN UIP D asics anc nigedcnaiaduesenuteiuaredehciabindiaesciaconcioeies 20, 21

Jansen v. United States, 369 F.3d 237 (3rd Cir.

SR Schock Lealekch tnsgasindodvnccteeeskbosdy cuba Sibi eke 20

Janvier v. United States, 793 F.2d 449 (2nd Cir

i a ee ee 19

Johnson v. United States, 313 F.3d 815 (2nd Cir.

ER codes ec rhe enh asc ds esaG Peas Utiena dake ea 20

Jones v. Kemp, 706 F. Supp. 1534 (N.D. Ga. 19839)........... 18

tyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995)....0.... ccc cceeeeseeeeeeees 9

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971) ......0...c ee. 18

Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364 (1993).....0....000.0.... 15, 16

Long v. State, 883 P.2d 167 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994)........ 18

Martin v. United States, 109 F.3d 1177 (7th Cir.

RE Sp RASS bse NE Re, A EOE Spee mE BM Aaah METS HE 13

Milburn v. State, 15 S.W.3d 267 (Tex. App. — Hous-

SE SEN © SION hiv ccs eats de sdckvdsinelshinccikntece: 20, 21

Parke v. Raley, 506 U.S. 20 (1992) ..............cccccsccccssssccccseceee 7

People v. Kimble, 651 N.W.2d 798 (Mich. App. 2002) ....... 24

People v. Manners, 2004 WL 242920 (Mich. App.

RRS a PCN a SMR Ne End RE ee Beare Rg a eee 24

Pickens v. Lockhart, 714 F.2d 3455 (8th Cir.1983) ........... 21

Rompilla v. Beard, 125 S.Ct. 2456 (20085)........0.. 0... 11

Sandoval v. Calderon, 231 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir. 2000)....... 18

Spriggs v. Collins, 993 F.2d 85 (5th Cir. 1993).......... passim

State v. Davidson, 335 S.E.2d 518 (1985) .......0...0.0.. eee. 19

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES — Continued

Page

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)......... passim

Taylor v. Gilkey, 314 F.3d 832 (7th Cir. 2002) «0.0.0.0... 7

Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478 (1978)... cece 7,9

Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) ............ eee eeeeeeeee 7, 24

United States v. Blodgett, 970 F.2d 614 (9th Cir.

I ici tah ntalces hc cedetnig: Gita sack ceda snk Ranicl bhest asia ana hacia 9

United States v. Booker, 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005) ...... 14, 22, 23

United States v. Brim, 148 Fed.Appx. 619 (9th Cir.

5 REE aR na et ne eA Ronee ARAMA SCTE EER LE ARINC D ROM OET 19

United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984)..........000.00.... 10

United States v. Giry, 818 F.2d-120 (1st Cir. 1987),

cert. denied, 484 U.S. 855 (1967).............cc..cccccseccsocsesss 18

United States v. Glover, 101 F.3d 1183 (7th Cir.

|__| RRSP em esnamennyice SR ener Gm a Re SBI Ge RE Ae ate OS 12

United States v. Grammas, 376 F.3d 433 (5th Cir.

ME 0 ae i cicoukiccdectcciactigsicuss tied decieheaietaticeveinentviaa 7

United States v. Hanger, 1993 WL 128015 (4th Cir.

NG TOU a 19

United States v. Horey, 333 F.3d 1185 (10th Cir.

ie saan ine iio dsckdasaalbdceladcnssssnia dd diate 7,19

United States v. Kissick, 69 F.3d 1048 (10th Cir.

PUA foxsatcivdatin iets tacsclics sadasabicwibdgtucnekiaasdmnamearwnest ones ebinenelie 19

United States v. Phillips, 210 F.3d 345 (5th Cir.

RTO RSE iar Pet Nestea ate So BOW NS 8 en MERE PH NO ae Le BLE TT 13

United States v. Ray, 828 F.2d 399 (7th Cir. 1987)........... 19

United States v. Ridgeway, 321 F.3d 512 (5th Cir.

2003), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 977 (1999)........... eee 7

vill

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued

Page

United States v. Soto, 10 Fed.Appx. 226 (4th Cir.

IUD alicickcsicstadreattenscdamlideisiessiiccieaaniiinkicidatieapiomacsbiece: 19

Vela v. Estelle, 708 F.2d 954 (5th Cir. 1983).............0000..... 21

Ward v. State, 1999 WL 125404 (Tex. App. — Austin

NE TN ie siddacecn racine bicicecedividus tnbdoceandebatanushabiicnnthds 3

Weinberger v. United States, 268 F.3d 346 (6th Cir.

RP ieotaaca isdn satkceh : Ga a eveebia eked: tetos das cicbaaicigntinievnaes 19

Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000).................006.. 11, 16

Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003).......cccccccccsccseeseeeeee ll

Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280 (1976) ....... PRG

wréaht uv. West, SOG U.S. 277 (LODZ) vv cissceicccescecceonnssvavees 1]

STATUTES

RA a Mesh a i kenvicessunivincddhdain tant nabenewaeatel 23

OP RR Ms Be RII ncdispoceveasccoksubindvontalecssincsstincebsindewghipessadbes sc

Ra Fegy & » .” ER ancneeyeiy mcerence caine seses op Dy Bp Sty OO

Be rs WF ck voids tee rdssiicd annees soseessernessensensencensencenearen 7

OTHER AUTHORITIES

Court Organization Statistics, Bureau of Justice

Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice at Table

45; http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/courts.htm ................. 24

Nancy J. King, The Origins Of Felony Jury Sentenc-

ing In The United States, 78 Chicago-Kent L.Rev.

5 lp RECA RITE Raat ORME NE ee oe OM Pe ORM Oe 23

Crean: Bema TATE GZS (20D) oo ascvinsins vcsencecesensece cecdecesseees 23

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Petitioner, Bernard James Ward, Jr. respectfully

petitions for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of

the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in

this case.

¢

OPINIONS BELOW

The Fifth Circuit’s decision, reported at 420 F.3d 479,

is reprinted as Appendix A. The order of the Court of

Appeals denying rehearing is reprinted as Appendix C.

The District Court’s opinion is reprinted as Appendix B.

¢

JURISDICTION

The Fifth Circuit entered judgment on August 9, 2005.

Appendix A. Petitioner’s timely filed motion for rehearing

was denied on October 26, 2005. Appendix C. This Court

has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1254.

°

CONSTITUTIONAL AND

STATUTORY PROVISIONS

Amendment VI: In all criminal prosecutions, the

accused shall ... have the Assistance of Counsel for his

defence.

Amendment XIV: ... nor shall any State deprive any

person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of

law...

\

2

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1): An application for a writ of

habeas corpus ... shall not be granted ... unless the

adjudication of the claim —

(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to,

or involved an unreasonable application of,

clearly established Federal law, as determined by

the Supreme Court of the United States.

¢

STATEMENT

1. Overview Of The Case

Petitioner pleaded guilty to various counts contained

in two separate indictments in Texas state court. Because

Petitioner was eligible for probation from a jury on all

counts to which he pleaded, he elected to have a jury trial

on the issue of punishment as to all counts in both indict-

ments. The jury ultimately assessed his punishment as

follows: the statutory maximum of 10 years on one count

(possession of child pornography), the statutory maximum

of 20 years on each of four counts (indecency with a child

and sexual abuse of a child), and sixty years on each of

three counts (aggravated sexual abuse of a child).’

' The prosecutor asked the jury for a life sentence on the aggra-

vated sexual assault counts and did not address the punishment for the

other, less serious counts. Petitioner’s trial counsel requested probation

as to all counts. The jury instructions stated that as to the aggravated

sexual assault charges, Petitioner would have to serve 30 calendar

years flat or 1/2 of any sentence imposed, whichever was less, before

parole could be granted. As to the indecency with a child and sexual

assault charges (all of which were second degree felonies carrying a

maximum of 20 years), the jury was erroneously instructed (without an

objection by Petitioner’s counsel) that Petitioner would have to serve 30

calendar years flat or 1/2 of any sentence imposed, whichever was less,

(Continued on following page)

ee

After an unsuccessful direct appeal, Ward v. State,

1999 WL 125404 (Tex. App. — Austin 1999, pet. ref’d),

Petitioner sought collateral relief in state court contending

that his attorney had rendered ineffective assistance of

counsel at, inter alia, the punishment trial. After his state

court writ of habeas corpus was denied without a hearing,’

Petitioner sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The

United States District Court found that Petitioner’s trial

counsel, Hugh Lowe, rendered deficient performance in

regard to five specific acts and/or omissions regarding the

punishment trial and that this deficient performance

was prejudicial.’

before parole could be granted. As to the child pornography count, the

jury was instructed that Petitioner would have to serve 1/4 of any

sentence imposed, including flat and good conduct time, before he

would be etigible for parole. Thus, Petitioner effectively received the

maximum sentence on all counts except the aggravated sexual] assault

charges, and even as to those counts, his 60 calendar year sentence was

the functional equivalent of a life sentence for purposes of

parole eligibility.

* The state habeas court did not find Petitioner’s counsel ineffec-

tive and also found that, even if counsel had provided deficient per-

formance, there was no prejudice.

* The District Court denied relief on Petitioner’s claim that his

. counsel’s performance was deficient for failure to file a motion to

suppress, but granted a certificate of appealability on that issue. The

Fifth Circuit denied this cross-appeal, see Appendix A at Al, A6-A7,-

A9-A15, in part because “|t]he record contains no indication that Lowe

failed to conduct an adequate investigation into the law and facts

relevant to the suppression motion.” Appendix A at A11. As reflected

by Petitioner’s motion for rehearing to the Fifth Circuit, this conclusion

is factually incorrect because Petitioner’s state court writ alleged, under

oath, that trial counsel filed a “bare-bones suppression motion (drafted

by trial counsel’s law clerk)” (explanation in original), State Court Writ

at page 3, and that “[t]rial counsel’s file contains nothing that indicates

he researched the search and seizure issues.” State Court Writ at page

43.

Respondent appealed and a panel of the Fifth Circuit

found, with some modifications, that all five specific

instances did in fact constitute deficient performance and

that the state courts’ findings to the contrary were objec-

tively unreasonable. Appendix A at A15-A32. But the

Fifth Circuit also concluded that the state courts’ finding

of “no prejudice” was not objectively unreasonable because

Petitioner had failed to prove that he would have received

a “significantly less harsh” sentence, as mandated by

Spriggs v. Collins, 993 F.2d 85 (5th Cir. 1993). Appendix

A at A32-A36. The Fifth Circuit expressly refused to adopt

Petitioner’s position that this Court’s “any amount of jail

time” test from Glover v. United States, 531 U.S. 198, 203

(2001), was the proper standard for determining prejudice

under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).

Appendix A at A32 n.54. On rehearing, the Fifth Circuit

declined to reconsider Petitioner’s position that Glover had

overruled Spriggs, stating that “absent a more compelling

instruction from the Supreme Court, we decline to recon-

sider the Spriggs approach at this time.” Appendix C at

C5.

2. Detailed Statement Of The Case

The District Court found five factual bases for coun-

sel’s ineffectiveness at the punishment stage of the trial:

(1) counsel’s failure to request a curative in-

struction or move for a mistrial after the prose-

cutor queried a defense witness whether the

names, addresses and telephone numbers of

jurors who granted probation to a defen-

dant could be ordered by a judge to be