Supreme Court to Consider Appeal from Texas Inmate Claiming Attorney Ineffectiveness

December 9, 2024 TruthUSA

The Fifth Circuit did not permit the introduction of new evidence into the record but allowed the defendant to advance his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

The Supreme Court has agreed to review an appeal from a prisoner in Texas who asserts that new evidence was not presented at trial by his attorney, who he claims appeared intoxicated in court.

The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees a criminal defendant the right to effective legal counsel.

On December 6, the Supreme Court issued an unsigned order granting the petition in Rivers v. Lumpkin. There were no dissenting opinions among the justices, and the court did not provide an explanation for its decision.

The justices will examine a federal law that generally prevents a defendant from filing a second or successive habeas corpus application.

A habeas application is a request for judicial review of an individual’s imprisonment or detention, often used to challenge a criminal conviction.

In this heavily litigated case, the justices agreed to assess rules regarding “second or successive habeas” petitions and whether they apply to filings made after a district court has denied an initial application but before the case has been escalated to an appellate court.

There is disagreement among federal courts of appeals regarding the applicability of these rules in this scenario.

Rivers sought to amend his habeas application while it was under appeal. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied his request.

The case dates back to 2012 when a Texas state jury convicted Danny Richard Rivers of sexually abusing his children and possessing child pornography, as detailed in the petition Rivers submitted on June 24 to the Supreme Court.

In 2008, Rivers was granted temporary custody of his nine-year-old daughter by a Texas judge, who also awarded him exclusive use of their home, directed his former wife to pay child support, and denied her request for alimony. Rivers alleged that his ex-spouse “punished him” by restricting his access to his stepdaughter, whom he had raised as his own.

In 2009, while Rivers was away for work, his former wife took the children to a police station, where both girls claimed he had sexually abused them. Following a forensic investigation that included seizing their family laptop, police identified “two files of interest” that were suspected to be child pornography.

Without a prior criminal record, Rivers was indicted for sexual abuse and child pornography possession and entered not guilty pleas.

The girls alleged that there were over 200 instances of abuse, though these claims lacked corroborating witnesses or physical evidence, according to the petition.

The jury convicted Rivers on all counts but recommended a 42-year sentence, which was less than the 169 years requested by the state. The judge imposed a 38-year sentence, slightly above the minimum requirement.

The Texas Court of Appeals upheld his convictions.

In 2013, Rivers requested his counsel to provide him with his client file so he could represent himself. However, after two years without a response, he filed a complaint against his attorney with the Texas State Bar.

In 2016, Rivers contended that his trial lawyer failed to conduct a reasonable investigation, verify the ages of the individuals depicted in the alleged pornography, and was intoxicated during the trial.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals remanded the case to the trial court for further fact-finding. The trial lawyer denied being under the influence, asserting that Rivers had “admitted … he engaged in sexual acts with the victims.”

The trial court upheld the convictions, and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed this decision.

Rivers then appealed to a federal court in Texas, reiterating claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The court denied his appeal, prompting him to take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which also rejected his appeal.

While Rivers’ appeal was in progress, he obtained the computer files alongside a report from state investigators stating emphatically that one of the images in question was “NOT CHILD PORN,” as mentioned in the petition.

The Fifth Circuit denied Rivers’ motion to introduce this new evidence but permitted him to continue with his ineffective assistance claim.

On October 11, Texas urged the Supreme Court to deny Rivers’ request for review, arguing that his second habeas application was prohibited by federal law.

“The restrictions on ‘second or successive’ federal habeas petitions … apply to Rivers’ second petition because it challenged the same six-count judgment of conviction as his initial petition.”

The Epoch Times reached out for comments from Rivers’s attorney, Peter Bruland of Sidley Austin in Washington, and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s office. No responses were received by publication time.

If the Supreme Court decides to hold an oral argument early next year, its ruling in this case could come by June 2025.

Source link