Knight v. Quarterman , 163 F. App'x 288 ( 2006 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
REVISED JANUARY 13, 2006
January 12, 2006
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Charles R. Fulbruge III
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Clerk
_____________________
No. 04-70042
_____________________
PATRICK BRYAN KNIGHT,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
DOUG DRETKE, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL
JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,
Respondent - Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:99-CV-00085
_________________________________________________________________
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Patrick Bryan Knight was convicted and sentenced to death for
the 1991 murders of Walter and Mary Ann Werner. He requests a
certificate of appealability (“COA”) to appeal the district court’s
denial of federal habeas relief for four claims. The request is
GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part.
I
To obtain a COA, Knight must make “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A).
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
To make such a showing, he must demonstrate that “jurists of reason
could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his
constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues
presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed
further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). In
making our decision whether to grant a COA, we conduct a “threshold
inquiry”, which consists of “an overview of the claims in the
habeas petition and a general assessment of their merits.” Id. at
327, 336. “While the nature of a capital case is not of itself
sufficient to warrant the issuance of a COA, in a death penalty
case any doubts as to whether a COA should issue must be resolved
in the petitioner’s favor.” Ramirez v. Dretke, 398 F.3d 691, 694
(5th Cir. 2005) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
II
Based on our limited, threshold inquiry and general assessment
of the merits of Knight’s claims, we conclude that the following
claims present issues that are adequate to deserve encouragement to
proceed further:
Claim 1: whether Knight’s right to due process was violated
by the prosecution’s suppression of mitigating evidence on future
dangerousness;
Claim 2: whether Knight’s trial counsel rendered ineffective
assistance at both phases of his trial by failing to adequately
investigate and present evidence of Knight’s mental condition and
other mitigating evidence; and
2
Claim 4: whether Knight’s rights were violated when the trial
judge granted the State’s challenge for cause and excluded a
prospective juror.
Accordingly, we GRANT a COA for these claims. If petitioner
Knight wishes to file a supplemental brief with respect to the
merits of the claims for which a COA has been issued, he may do so
within thirty days of the date of this order. The supplemental
brief should address only matters that have not already been
covered in the brief in support of the COA application. The State
may file a response fifteen days thereafter.
III
Knight has failed to demonstrate that jurists of reason could
disagree with or find debatable the district court’s denial of his
request for funds for an expert witness to conduct psychological
testing and evaluation. Knight asserts that the $1,250 provided by
the state court was insufficient, and that the district court
should have provided resources for Dr. Paula Lundberg-Love to
complete a psychological evaluation.
The state habeas court found that Dr. Lundberg-Love was not
professionally qualified to interpret the results of Knight’s
psychological test results and was not otherwise credible. That
court found that Dr. Lundberg-Love’s conclusion that Knight may
have experienced anoxia which could have resulted in brain damage
to be anecdotal in nature and not supported by any available
medical records; that Knight’s IQ was in the low-normal range; and
3
that the records before it contained no evidence that Knight had
ever exhibited signs of brain damage. The state court also found
that the notes of Dr. Price, the psychological expert retained by
trial counsel, did not support a conclusion that Knight suffered
from organic brain damage or cerebral dysfunction despite Dr.
Lundberg-Love’s feelings; and that her opinion that Knight suffered
from a cognitive disorder was not supported by objective criteria.
Knight presented the same evidence in federal court that he
presented in the state court in support of his claim of brain
damage. In the light of the state habeas court’s findings
regarding Dr. Lundberg-Love’s qualifications and credibility, and
Knight’s failure to present any objective evidence that he suffered
from brain damage, reasonable jurists would not debate the district
court’s decision to deny funds for psychological testing and
evaluation by Dr. Lundberg-Love. We therefore DENY his request for
a COA for this claim.
COA GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
4