Case: 22-10280 Document: 00516789191 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/15/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-10280
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ June 15, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
Rodney Adam Hurdsman, 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 Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:21-CV-427
______________________________
Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
A jury found Rodney Adam Hurdsman, Texas prisoner # 02170782,
guilty of theft of property valued at between $20,000 and $100,000 and, after
finding the enhancement paragraphs alleging Hurdsman had prior
convictions were true, sentenced him to 75 years of imprisonment. His
conviction was affirmed on direct appeal, and the Texas Court of Criminal
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10280 Document: 00516789191 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/15/2023
No. 22-10280
Appeals (TCCA) refused his petition for discretionary review. Hurdsman
then unsuccessfully sought state habeas relief.
Through counsel, Hurdsman filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition.
Relevant here, he argued that (1) his trial counsel was ineffective during the
plea-bargaining process because he did not advise the State that Hurdsman
accepted the State’s plea offer of 18 months of imprisonment and (2) he was
denied counsel altogether during critical stages of the proceedings when
retained attorneys withdrew from representation without giving notice to
Hurdsman. He also requested an evidentiary hearing. The district court
rejected his arguments on their merits and denied a certificate of appealability
(COA). This court granted a COA on the two issues presented.
When a district court denies a federal habeas petition that is governed
by § 2254(d), “this Court reviews the district court’s findings of fact for clear
error and its conclusions of law de novo, ‘applying the same standard of
review to the state court’s decision as the district court.’” Anaya v. Lumpkin,
976 F.3d 545, 550 (5th Cir. 2020) (quoting Robertson v. Cain, 324 F.3d 297,
301 (5th Cir. 2003)).
Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA),
a state court’s adjudication of an issue on the merits is entitled to deference.
See Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 101 (2011). Accordingly, relief under
§ 2254 shall not be granted unless the state court’s adjudication of a claim on
the merits “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of,
clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the
United States” or “resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable
determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court
proceeding.” § 2254(d)(1), (2).
Hurdsman first argues that his original trial counsel rendered
ineffective assistance by failing to convey his acceptance of the State’s plea
2
Case: 22-10280 Document: 00516789191 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/15/2023
No. 22-10280
offer of 18 months imprisonment. To prevail on an ineffective assistance of
counsel claim, an applicant must show “that counsel’s performance was
deficient” and “that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.”
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). To show prejudice under
Strickland, a petitioner must show a reasonable probability that, but for
counsel’s errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Id.
at 694. In deciding ineffective assistance of counsel claims, the reviewing
court need not address both prongs of Strickland but may dispose of such a
claim based solely on a petitioner’s failure to meet either prong of the test.
United States v. Kimler, 167 F.3d 889, 893 (5th Cir. 1999).
The state habeas court’s rejection of this claim on the basis that the
State made no 18-month offer and that Hurdsman suffered no prejudice was
neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of Strickland nor based
on an unreasonable determination of the facts. Put differently, given the
record, the state court’s conclusion was not “so lacking in justification that
there was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond
any possibility for fairminded disagreement.” Richter, 562 U.S. at 103.
Next, Hurdsman claims that he was denied counsel altogether
through critical stages of the pretrial proceedings when his retained attorneys
were permitted to withdraw from representation without notification in
October 2014. Over the next three years, Hurdsman remained in other
jurisdictions facing unrelated charges. Eventually, in July 2017, he was
returned to Texas to face the charge of theft of property. He avers that this
three-year period is critical because when his attorneys abandoned him
without notice, vital investigation, protection of trial rights, and negotiation
were effectively halted.
Under United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984), prejudice is
presumed in a very narrow spectrum of cases where the circumstances
3
Case: 22-10280 Document: 00516789191 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/15/2023
No. 22-10280
leading to counsel’s ineffectiveness are so egregious that the defendant was,
in effect, denied any meaningful assistance, see Jackson v. Johnson, 150 F.3d
520, 525 (5th Cir. 1998), such as where the defendant was completely denied
counsel at a critical stage of the proceedings, see United States v. Griffin, 324
F.3d 330, 363 (5th Cir. 2003). Hurdsman has failed to demonstrate that the
state habeas court’s rejection of this argument was contrary to or an
unreasonable application of Cronic. Thus, the district court did not err in
rejecting this claim. See Richter, 562 U.S. at 103.
Lastly, Hurdsman argues that the district court erred in denying his
motion for an evidentiary hearing regarding a recorded telephone
conversation he avers supports his claim that the State offered an 18-month
plea deal. However, even if the recorded call supports Hurdsman’s claim of
deficient performance, the state court’s conclusion he suffered no prejudice
is not unreasonable. Thus, we need not reach this issue.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.
4