Edward Anthony Ellis v. James A. Collins, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division

Citations: 956 F.2d 76; 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 3829; 1992 WL 43122Docket: 92-2151

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; March 3, 1992; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Petitioner Edward Anthony Ellis, sentenced to death for the capital murder of Bertie Eakins, sought a certificate of probable cause and stay of execution from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The court denied both, finding no substantial showing of a federal rights violation. Ellis’s conviction was affirmed by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, and his initial habeas corpus application was denied without a written order. Subsequent applications in state court were also denied, including four additional petitions for habeas corpus relief raising nine claims: actual innocence, prosecutorial misconduct regarding evidence and witness testimony, ineffective assistance of counsel, and issues with the sentencing scheme. The federal district court denied Ellis’s habeas corpus petition, citing the doctrine of abuse of the writ for all claims except actual innocence, which it ruled could not warrant federal habeas relief under existing precedent. Ellis subsequently appealed, reiterating the same claims.

Petitioner claims actual innocence in the murder of Ms. Eakins, asserting that the real perpetrator is Pablo Alonzo, who is now deceased. Supporting this claim, Petitioner provides affidavits, notably from Alonzo's wife, Esperidiona Alonzo, who states that Alonzo confessed to the murder. Additionally, a handwritten note allegedly from Alonzo confesses to the crime and was reportedly discovered recently with the help of Petitioner's counsel. 

The document clarifies that newly discovered evidence alone does not guarantee federal habeas relief, as federal courts do not re-evaluate factual determinations made by state courts. Instead, their role is to ensure constitutional rights were upheld. The recent Supreme Court case, Herrera v. Collins, does not change this framework, particularly since the Court denied a stay of execution in that case.

The state court previously reviewed the affidavits and deemed Mrs. Alonzo's testimony and the handwritten note questionable, finding other affidavits submitted by Petitioner not credible or material. Despite the absence of live testimony, the presumption of correctness applies to the state court's factual findings under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). The federal court noted that it can defer to state court findings as long as there is a written opinion or findings from the state court. However, it acknowledged that not all factual determinations based solely on paper records are entitled to this presumption, necessitating a case-by-case analysis to determine if a paper hearing suffices for resolving factual disputes in Petitioner's claim.

The state habeas petition filed by Ellis was reviewed by the same judge who presided over his trial and sentencing. The judge provided written findings and conclusions, which, based on prior rulings, are entitled to a presumption of correctness, even without an evidentiary hearing. The judge was able to assess the reliability of affidavits against his firsthand trial knowledge. The court found Ellis's claims of actual innocence unconvincing, highlighting inconsistencies in witness testimonies, particularly noting Garcia's affidavit placing Ellis at the crime scene without evidence of attempts to implicate Alonzo during the trial. The court also pointed out the delayed testimony from Mrs. Alonzo, suggesting a lack of credibility.

Ellis failed to demonstrate cause and prejudice for not raising certain claims in his first federal habeas petition. Claims related to Caldwell v. Mississippi and Penry were available prior to that petition. Under Murray v. Carrier, Ellis needed to show that a constitutional violation prevented him from proving his actual innocence, which he did not. Consequently, claims 2 through 9 were dismissed for abuse of the writ. Even considering the claims favorably, those related to sentencing rather than conviction were rightly deemed lacking merit. The court ultimately denied both the application for a certificate of probable cause and a stay of execution.