Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Larry Neathery v. William Stephens, Director
Citations: 746 F.3d 227; 2014 WL 1243810; 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 5691Docket: 11-10968
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; March 26, 2014; Federal Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Larry Nuell Neathery, a Texas prisoner, is seeking a certificate of appealability (COA) following the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application, which challenged multiple convictions, including aggravated sexual assault and indecency with a child. The district court had dismissed Neathery's application, finding some claims unexhausted and procedurally defaulted, while others did not warrant federal habeas relief. The Fifth Circuit initially denied Neathery's motions for a COA, stating he failed to demonstrate a substantial constitutional rights violation. Neathery subsequently petitioned for rehearing and for certiorari to the Supreme Court, contending that procedurally defaulted claims should be reviewed based on the Supreme Court's ruling in *Martinez v. Ryan*, which allows for the hearing of certain ineffective assistance of counsel claims that were not properly raised due to lack of counsel or ineffective counsel in state collateral proceedings. The Fifth Circuit recognized that while Texas law does not mandate raising such claims solely in initial collateral reviews, the practical application of Texas law aligns with the *Martinez* ruling. In light of *Trevino v. Thaler*, the Supreme Court vacated the Fifth Circuit's prior order and remanded the case for reconsideration, indicating that some of Neathery's ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims might be preserved for federal review. The Fifth Circuit instructed the district court to determine which claims were preserved based on Neathery's assertions regarding counsel in his initial state collateral review and to assess the merits of those claims. The district court may also stay proceedings to allow Neathery to pursue preserved claims in state court. The COA was denied for claims already addressed on their merits and those definitively procedurally defaulted.