UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-30909
CHRISTOPHER SEPULVADO,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
BURL CAIN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary; RICHARD L.
STADLER,
Respondents-Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
(00-CV-596)
_________________________________________________________________
January 13, 2003
Before SMITH, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Christopher Sepulvado, a Louisiana state prisoner sentenced to
death for capital murder, requests a certificate of appealability
(COA) in order to appeal the denial of habeas relief. DENIED.
I.
In 1993, after being convicted of first-degree murder of his
six-year-old stepson, Sepulvado was sentenced to death.
(Sepulvado's wife, Yvonne Sepulvado, originally charged with first-
*
Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
degree murder, was convicted of manslaughter. State v. Sepulvado,
672 So.2d 158, 161 n.1 (La. 1996).)
On Thursday, March 5, 1992, [Sepulvado]
married the victim's mother, Yvonne. The next
day, Friday, the victim came home from school,
having defecated in his pants. Yvonne spanked
him and refused to give him supper.
[Sepulvado] returned home from work at
approximately 9:00 p.m. That night, the
victim was not allowed to change his clothes
and was made to sleep on a trunk at the foot
of his bed. On Saturday, the victim was not
allowed to eat and was again made to sleep on
the trunk in his soiled clothes. At around
10:00 a.m. on Sunday, [Sepulvado] and the
victim were in the bathroom, preparing to
attend church services. [Sepulvado] instructed
the victim to wash out his soiled underwear in
the toilet and then take a bath. When the
victim hesitated to do so, [Sepulvado] hit him
over the head with the handle of a screwdriver
several times with enough force to render him
unconscious. Thereafter, the victim was
immersed in the bathtub which was filled with
scalding hot water.
Approximately three hours later, at
around 1:50 p.m., [Sepulvado] and his wife
brought the victim to the emergency room at
the hospital. At that time the victim was not
breathing, had no pulse, and probably had been
dead for approximately thirty to sixty
minutes. All attempts to revive the victim
were futile. The cause of death was attributed
to the scald burns covering 60% of the
victim's body, primarily on his backside.
There were third degree burns over 58% of the
body and second degree burns on the remaining
2%. The scalding was so severe that the
victim's skin had been burned away. In
addition to the burns, medical examination
revealed that the victim had been severely
beaten. The victim's scalp had separated from
his skull due to hemorrhaging and bruising.
2
Also, there were deep bruises on the victim's
buttocks and groin which were not consistent
with accidental injury.
At trial, [Sepulvado] admitted that he
hit the victim with a screwdriver, but
contended that the victim fell into the tub
accidentally. However, the state presented
expert testimony that the burn marks on the
victim's body did not indicate he accidentally
fell into the tub, since there were no signs
of splash marks that would result from a
struggle. The experts testified that the marks
were consistent with the victim being dipped
or immersed into the scalding water.
Id. at 162.
Sepulvado’s conviction and sentence were affirmed by the
Louisiana Supreme Court. Id. at 171. The United States Supreme
Court denied certiorari. Sepulvado v. Louisiana, 519 U.S. 934,
reh'g denied, 519 U.S. 1035 (1996).
In 1997, Sepulvado filed for state post-conviction relief,
claiming: (1) ineffective assistance of counsel; (2) denial of due
process due to the termination of his counsel; (3) prosecutor’s
misstatements of law regarding mitigation; (4) State’s failure to
provide him necessary funds for investigation of his post-
conviction claims; (5) lethal injection violated the Louisiana and
United States Constitutions; (6) retroactive application of the
contemporaneous objection rule; (7) State’s failure to adequately
and timely notify him of sentencing issues and its intention to
introduce certain evidence; (8) unconstitutional court-ordered
psychiatric evaluation; (9) improper jury instructions; (10)
3
unconstitutionally vague application of “especially heinous,
atrocious or cruel” aggravating circumstance; and (11)
discrimination in selection of grand jury forepersons.
The state habeas judge had served as trial judge. In 1998, an
evidentiary hearing was held on the ineffective assistance claims,
discussed infra. Both of Sepulvado’s trial counsel, a
psychiatrist, and an expert defense attorney testified.
In April 1999, that court denied post-conviction relief. And,
in March 2000, the Louisiana Supreme Court denied an application
for a supervisory or remedial writ.
Later that month, Sepulvado filed for federal habeas relief,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He raised the same 11 issues as in
state court. In late 2001, the district court denied the petition;
nevertheless, it ordered an evidentiary hearing on the grand jury
forepersons claim. Sepulvado v. Cain, No. 00-596 (W.D. La. 21 Nov.
2001) (Original Opinion). That December, pursuant to a Rule 59(e)
motion, the district court withdrew the habeas denial, pending the
evidentiary hearing.
The evidentiary hearing was conducted by a magistrate judge in
April 2002. That June, the magistrate judge recommended denial of
the forepersons claim. That August, the district court adopted the
recommendation and denied relief. Sepulvado v. Cain, No. 00-596
(W.D. La. 9 Aug. 2002).
4
Sepulvado’s COA application was denied the next month
(September 2002).
II.
Pursuant to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
of 1996 (AEDPA), Sepulvado must obtain a COA in order to appeal the
habeas denial. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). For the 11 claims
raised in his § 2254 petition, he seeks certification on six: (1)
ineffective assistance of counsel; (2) discrimination in the
selection of grand jury forepersons; (3) unconstitutional, court-
ordered psychiatric evaluation; (4) prosecutor’s misstatements of
law regarding mitigation; (5) improper jury instructions; and (6)
retroactive application of the contemporaneous objection rule.
To obtain a COA, Sepulvado must make “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right”. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). In
general, he must demonstrate “reasonable jurists could debate
whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the [federal habeas]
petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that
the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to
proceed further”. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)
(internal quotation marks omitted). Another statement of the
standard is that Sepulvado must show “reasonable jurists would find
the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims
debatable or wrong”. Id.
5
To obtain a COA for a claim denied on procedural grounds,
Sepulvado must not only make the above-described showing concerning
the merits of a claim, but also must show “jurists of reason would
find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its
procedural ruling”. Id.
Moreover, a COA request is viewed against the backdrop, under
AEDPA, for obtaining habeas relief. In that regard, and if a COA
is granted, we review state court decisions only to determine
whether they were “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable
application of, clearly established Federal law” or were “based on
an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence
presented in the State court proceeding”. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)
& (2).
A.
Sepulvado contends that his trial counsel, Brown and Toups,
provided ineffective assistance, contrary to the Sixth Amendment.
To establish ineffective assistance, Sepulvado must satisfy the
well-known two-prong standard: counsel’s performance was
deficient, falling below an objective standard of reasonableness;
and this deficient performance prejudiced the defense, such that
there is a reasonable probability that, but for such performance,
the outcome of the trial would have been different. E.g.,
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 694 (1984).
6
Sepulvado claims ineffective assistance at the trial's guilt
and penalty phases. (In addition to instances of claimed
ineffective assistance addressed in this part, Sepulvado's
ineffectiveness claim concerning grand jury forepersons is
addressed in part II.B.)
In general, Brown was to take the lead at the guilt phase;
Toups, the penalty phase. As noted, each testified at the state
habeas evidentiary hearing. As discussed below, none of the
ineffectiveness claims satisfies the standard for receiving a COA.
1.
Sepulvado maintains: Brown failed to interview a witness for
the State, Dr. McCormick, before questioning him at trial on the
defense theory that the murder was an “impulse” killing; instead
of interviewing that witness pre-trial, Brown relied on interview
notes made by Sepulvado’s prior attorney; Dr. McCormick answered
that the homicide was intentional, not impulsive, thereby
discrediting the defense theory; and not having expected that
answer, Brown was unprepared to call his own expert to testify to
the impulsive nature of the killing.
For this and all other ineffective assistance claims, the
state court ruled them “completely without a scintilla of merit”.
Having presided at trial, the state habeas judge noted:
In no case either during the guilt-innocence
phase or the penalty phase did this Court
observe that either attorney['s] performance
had fallen below an objective standard of
reasonableness and that the dereliction had
7
prejudiced the defendant to the extent that
the trial has been rendered unfair and the
jury verdict on either guilt or innocence or
penalty suspect.
For the federal petition, the district court held counsel’s
failure to investigate the effectiveness of the “impulse” theory
was not deficient performance. Noting that 14 witnesses testified
during the penalty phase, it ruled “Brown conducted ample
investigation in an effort to mitigate petitioner’s sentence”.
Original Opinion at 7. More to the point, it ruled there had been
no showing that the introduction of the “impulse” theory would have
“altered the outcome of the trial”. Id.
Sepulvado has adduced no other evidence in support of the
“impulse” theory. For example, he has not identified a witness
whose opinion would be contrary to Dr. McCormick’s. Reasonable
jurists would not find the district court’s assessment debatable or
wrong.
2.
Sepulvado claims Brown failed, during the penalty phase, to
offer neuropsychological test results showing Sepulvado was
positive for four of five brain dysfunction factors. This
constitutes deficient performance, according to Sepulvado, because
Toups (Sepulvado's other trial counsel) testified at the state
habeas evidentiary hearing that he would have brought such testing
to the jury’s attention.
8
As noted, the state court dismissed all of the ineffective
assistance claims as meritless. The federal district court found
that counsel had submitted evidence regarding the
neuropsychological issue through the testimony of a clinical social
worker, who testified about the “high number of deaths in
[Sepulvado]’s past, his childhood experiences and his alcoholism as
mitigating evidence”. Original Opinion at 9. The district court
ruled that counsel’s failure to perceive the need to “bolster this
expert with additional testimony” was a “tactical decision” that
“did not amount to a deficiency in representation”. Id.
The report containing the brain dysfunction analysis indicated
that such dysfunction would not mitigate responsibility for the
crime. For this and similar reasons, Brown decided not to open the
door to the introduction of such facts. Reasonable jurists would
not find the district court’s assessment debatable or wrong.
3.
Sepulvado also challenges Toups’ comment in his penalty phase
opening statement that the decision facing the jury “would be a
tough one for [Toups]”.
Again, the state court summarily dismissed the ineffective
assistance claims. Although Sepulvado presented this claim in
federal district court, the court did not address it in its
opinion.
9
Notwithstanding the challenged statement, Toups encouraged the
jury to conclude that Sepulvado should be sentenced only to life in
prison. When read in the context of Toups’ entire statement,
reasonable jurists would not debate whether the petition should
have been resolved in a different manner or that this issue is
adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.
4.
As noted, Toups was to primarily handle Sepulvado's
representation during the penalty phase. Nevertheless, Brown
participated in the representation for that phase. Sepulvado
contends Brown's performance was deficient at this stage because he
was: “fatigued” and “stressed out” by the guilt phase; and at a
“psychological disadvantage”, having been the losing attorney
during the guilt phase.
Again, the state court summarily held Sepulvado’s ineffective
assistance claims were meritless. Although the issue was presented
in federal district court, the court did not address it in its
opinion.
Even if Brown’s participation could be considered deficient
performance, the record shows that Toups examined nine of the 14
penalty phase witnesses. Also, Sepulvado has offered no basis for
finding the outcome of the penalty phase would have been different
had Toups conducted all of the examination. Reasonable jurists
would not debate whether the petition should have been resolved in
10
a different manner or that this issue is adequate to deserve
encouragement to proceed further.
B.
Sepulvado contends his due process and equal protection rights
were violated because the State has discriminated against black
venire members in the selection of grand jury forepersons.
Although Sepulvado is not black, he has standing to make the claim.
Campbell v. Louisiana, 523 U.S. 392 (1998).
The magistrate judge, after the evidentiary hearing,
recommended that Sepulvado had established a prima facie
discrimination claim. The magistrate judge recommended, and the
district judge agreed, however, with the state habeas ruling that
the claim was procedurally barred. The state court had ruled: “In
this case there was no objection, prior to the conviction, of the
grand jury process through a timely filing of a motion to quash.
This claim is therefore not properly before the Court....” (That
court also ruled that the claim was meritless, because the court
had “appoint[ed] a number of minorities to serve as grand jury
foremen....”)
“It is undisputable that under Louisiana law, a challenge to
the legality of the grand jury venire must be made by a pretrial
motion to quash.” Williams v. Cain, 125 F.3d 269, 274 (5th Cir.
1997), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 859 (1998). Sepulvado seeks to
overcome this procedural bar by claiming cause for the failure to
11
move to quash and resulting prejudice. Reasonable jurists would
not find the district court's assessment debatable or wrong.
1.
First, Sepulvado claims the failure to timely raise the issue
was caused by ineffectiveness of counsel. Ineffective assistance
may be a cause for procedural default, but only if the attorney’s
performance was deficient under Strickland. Murray v. Carrier, 477
U.S. 478, 488 (1986). Sepulvado contends only that counsel were
“deficient” for failing to raise the grand jury issue at trial.
Apparently, he claims this “deficiency” reached unconstitutional
levels as described in Strickland and incorporated by Murray.
As the report and recommendation, adopted by the district
court, stated: “Counsel’s performance is not rendered
constitutionally deficient merely because he is insufficiently
prescient to file a motion in 1992 [when Sepulvado was indicted]
based on a rule of law that will not be announced until 1998 [in
Campbell]”.
In short, prior to Sepulvado’s indictment (1992), Campbell
(1998) had not been decided. And, Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400
(1991), had held only that white defendants had standing to
challenge a prosecutor’s use of peremptory strikes against black
potential jurors; grand jurors were not at issue. Moreover, Hobby
v. United States, 468 U.S. 339 (1984), had earlier rejected a due
12
process challenge to discrimination in the selection of a black
federal grand jury foreperson.
Campbell did “not state a new Fifth Amendment equal protection
rule” and “was dictated by the Court’s precedents”. Peterson v.
Cain, 302 F.3d 508, 513 (5th Cir. 2002). On the other hand, this
does not mean that an attorney’s failure to raise such a claim in
1992 fell below the objective level of competence required by
Strickland.
Absent such a deficiency, there is “no inequity in requiring
[Sepulvado] to bear the risk of attorney error that results in a
procedural default”. Murray, 477 U.S. at 488.
2.
In the alternative, Sepulvado has not satisfied the COA
standard concerning the prejudice portion for “cause” and
“prejudice”. The report and recommendation, adopted by the
district court, noted:
Petitioner has not attempted to articulate how
the foreman selection process (in connection
with a grand jury that indicts on mere
probable cause found by 9 of 12 members)
worked to his actual prejudice when he was
convicted by a lawfully chosen petit jury of
twelve persons who unanimously found him
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Sepulvado states that, had a timely motion to quash been made,
the judgment would have been reversed on appeal on that basis; and,
on remand, he might have been offered a life sentence plea. He
offers no basis for this conclusory plea-claim.
13
In the alternative, Sepulvado urges that, absent a plea on
remand, a second trial would not have resulted in the death
penalty. Again, he provides no support for this conclusory claim.
(Along this line, Sepulvado does not make an “actual innocence”
claim as an alternative to a required showing of “cause” and
“prejudice”.)
C.
Sepulvado next claims the state court improperly ordered a
psychiatric evaluation for him.
1.
Both the state and district court, however, noted that
Sepulvado, at the time of that order, had filed a “Notice of
Defense based upon Mental Condition” and, therefore, ruled the
court-ordered examination was proper. Original Opinion at 16.
Reasonable jurists would not find the district court’s assessment
debatable or wrong.
2.
Alternatively, Sepulvado complains that, for the evaluation,
he was not advised of his rights to remain silent and to an
attorney. See Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454, 467-68 (1981).
Although this issue was raised in state court, that court did not
address it.
The district court first noted that no evidence was adduced by
Sepulvado supporting these allegations. Original Opinion at 16
14
n.5. It then assumed arguendo that such a constitutional violation
occurred, but held the error was harmless because none of the
psychiatrist’s findings were introduced at trial. Original Opinion
at 17; see also, e.g., Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750
(1946). Reasonable jurists would not find the district court’s
assessment debatable or wrong.
3.
Sepulvado summarily claims his Eighth Amendment right to a
constitutionally sound sentencing procedure was compromised because
the existence of the evaluation caused him to strategically refrain
from “explor[ing] ... psychiatric defenses”. Although presented to
them, neither the state nor district court addressed this specific
issue in their opinions.
Sepulvado does not describe what these claimed “psychiatric
defenses” would have been; nor does he claim they would have led to
a different outcome. Reasonable jurists would not debate whether
the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or
that this issue is adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed
further.
D.
Sepulvado claims that, during voir dire, the prosecutor
misstated the law concerning mitigating evidence. See Lockett v.
Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (1978). The prosecutor stated: prospective
jurors were to “consider” mitigating evidence to determine whether
15
the mitigating factors “fit”; they should be “open minded” with
regard to the evidence; and “considering” the evidence did not
compel a juror to “accept” it.
There was no contemporaneous objection. It does not appear
that either the state or federal court addressed whether this claim
is procedurally barred because of this failing. Nor does the State
assert such a bar here.
The state court ruled the statements were not misstatements of
the law, and, in any event, did not justify post-conviction relief.
Likewise, the district court held the prosecutor did not misstate
the law. Original Opinion at 13.
Lockett holds jurors must not “be precluded from considering,
as a mitigating factor, any aspect ... that the defendant proffers
as a basis for a sentence less than death”. 438 U.S. at 604 (first
emphasis added). Reasonable jurists would not find the district
court’s assessment debatable or wrong.
E.
Sepulvado claims the jury was improperly instructed on the
reasonable doubt standard. This claim is based on Cage v.
Louisiana, 498 U.S. 39, 41 (1990): an instruction is
unconstitutional if “a reasonable juror could have interpreted the
instruction to allow a finding of guilt based on a degree of proof
below that required by the Due Process Clause”. The Court refined
this test: the inquiry is whether it is reasonably likely that the
16
jury applied the instruction in an unconstitutional manner. See
Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1, 6 (1994); Estelle v. McGuire, 502
U.S. 62, 72 n.4, (1991) (citing Boyde v. California, 494 U.S. 370,
379-80 (1990)).
The jury was instructed:
It is sufficient that the State prove the
guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable
doubt.
***
A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible
doubt; it should be actual doubt. It is such
a doubt as a reasonable person would seriously
entertain. It is a doubt that one could have
reason for. It is an honest misgiving, or
doubt, arising from proof or lack of proof in
the case.
(Emphasis added.) Sepulvado claims use of “actual doubt” and
“honest doubt” instructed the jury that, for acquittal, a standard
higher than “reasonable doubt” was required.
Noting it was well aware of Cage when it instructed the jury,
the state court ruled that the instruction was a proper statement
of the law. The district court ruled that, although the phrase
“actual doubt” was used, the instruction as a whole correctly
conveyed the concept of reasonable doubt. Original Opinion at 21.
Cage held unconstitutional an instruction which equated
“reasonable doubt” with “grave uncertainty” and “actual substantial
doubt”, requiring only a “moral certainty” rather than an
“evidentiary certainty”. 498 U.S. at 41. The Court held “actual
17
substantial doubt”, in that context, connoted, for acquittal, a
higher standard of doubt than “reasonable doubt”. Id.
Although the trial court used the phrase “actual doubt”, it
did not include a substantiality requirement. Moreover, by
comparison, Victor held the use of “moral certainty” did not render
it unconstitutional (that phrase is not in the instruction at
issue). 511 U.S. at 16. In the light of the entire instruction,
reasonable jurists would not find the district court’s assessment
debatable or wrong.
F.
For his final claim, Sepulvado maintains his rights were
violated by the arbitrary application of Louisiana’s
contemporaneous objection rule. Sepulvado's failure to identify
those claimed instances when an objection should have been made is
discussed below.
State v. Smith, 554 So.2d 676, 678 (La. 1989), crafted, for
cases in which the death penalty was applicable, an exception to
the rule that the Louisiana Supreme Court would not review an error
for which an objection had not been made in the trial court;
instead, unobjected-to errors would be reviewed, despite the
contemporaneous objection rule.
Sepulvado’s trial (1993) occurred during the period between
the decisions in Smith (1989) and State v. Taylor, 669 So.2d 364
(La.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 860 (1996). For the guilt phase of
18
trial, Taylor repudiated the exception to the contemporaneous
objection rule, even for those cases tried after Smith — as was
Sepulvado's. 669 So.2d at 369.
On Sepulvado's direct appeal, decided post-Taylor, the
Louisiana Supreme Court held that defendants, including Sepulvado,
could not claim reliance on Smith, because they could not have
known, during the guilt phase, “if [they] would ultimately receive
the death penalty”. 672 So.2d at 162.
State v. Wessinger, 736 So.2d 162 (La.), cert. denied, 528
U.S. 1050 (1999), extended this logic by repudiating the Smith
exception even for the penalty phase, but only applying that
repudiation prospectively.
The state court held itself bound by Taylor, and thus denied
relief on this issue. The district court noted that the failure to
make contemporaneous objections “may be raised as ineffective
assistance of counsel on post conviction relief”. Original Opinion
at 14. It then reviewed the claimed failures to object and found
that “no Strickland violations had been committed”. Id.
Sepulvado makes no showing that his attorneys relied on Smith
for not objecting when Sepulvado believes they should have, during
the guilt phase. Along this line, Sepulvado does not even describe
these unobjected-to errors, even though the district court
addressed them in its opinion and held no ineffective assistance.
19
Reasonable jurists would not find the district court’s assessment
debatable or wrong.
III.
For the foregoing reasons, each COA request is
DENIED.
20