Goodman v. Dretke

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT January 23, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-51007
Summary Calendar
QUENTIN LARRY GOODMAN,
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 Western District of Texas
USDC No. A-03-CV-218-JN
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Quentin Larry Goodman seeks a certificate of appealability
(“COA”) to appeal the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 petition, in which he sought to challenge his 60-year
sentence for aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. He argues
that the district court was unable to conduct an independent
review of his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim because the
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 03-51007
-2-
state habeas record submitted to the district court was
incomplete.
To obtain a COA, Goodman must make a substantial showing
of the denial of a constitutional right. Miller-El v. Cockrell,
537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). When, as here, the district court
dismisses a petition on the merits, the petitioner must show
“that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s
assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.”
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). This threshold
inquiry does not require a showing that the appeal will succeed.
Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 337. Rather, this court looks to the
district court’s application of the Antiterrorism and Effective
Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) to the petitioner’s constitutional
claims and asks whether the district court’s resolution of those
claims was debatable among jurists of reason. Id. at 336, 341.
Goodman has made the requisite showing. Ineffective-
assistance-of-counsel claims are evaluated under the two-prong
test enunciated in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).
In this case, the district court concluded that Goodman satisfied
the first prong of Strickland; however, the district court
concluded that he failed to show Strickland prejudice. In
reaching that determination, the district court found that
Goodman failed to present evidence to contradict the state habeas
court’s findings concerning the negative impact of information
No. 03-51007
-3-
contained in a sheriff’s investigative report on the affidavit
Goodman produced in support of his claim.
Under the AEDPA, the district court is required to “give
full consideration to the substantial evidence [a] petitioner
put[s] forth in support of [his] case.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at
340. In this case the district court could not have given full
consideration to the affidavit Goodman provided in support of
his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim because the district
court did not have a complete record before it. A review of
the sheriff’s investigative report, on which the state habeas
court relied in discounting the affidavit, would have been
critical to making a determination as to whether the state
habeas court’s application of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.
668 (1984) was reasonable.
Goodman has provided this court with a copy of the sheriff’s
investigative report. However, the effect of this report on
Goodman’s claim is an issue which is better addressed in the
first instance by the district court. Accordingly, we grant
Goodman’s motion for COA, vacate the district court’s order,
and remand this case for further consideration. On remand, the
district court should be provided with a copy of the sheriff’s
investigative report.
GRANT COA; VACATE JUDGMENT; REMAND FOR FURTHER
CONSIDERATION.