Fifth Circuit Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the 5th Circuit Federal Court - Court of Appeals

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions - 5th Circuit
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case is from the Fifth Circuit Court or Appeals. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.
No. 95-10078.
Ronald P. REED, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Wayne SCOTT, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
Institutional Division, Respondent-Appellee.
Dec. 18, 1995.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas.
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and HILL* and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
POLITZ, Chief Judge:
Ronald P. Reed appeals the denial of his petition for the writ
of habeas corpus. For the reasons assigned we reverse and remand.
BACKGROUND
In 1986 Ronald P. Reed was convicted in Texas state court of
aggravated sexual assault and sentenced to life in prison. Reed's
conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.1 In affirming his
conviction the court of appeals declined to reach the merits of his
Batson2 claim because Reed failed to provide a complete transcript
of the voir dire examination.3 The court of appeals based its
*Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit, sitting by
designation.
1Reed v. State, 751 S.W.2d 607 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1988, no
pet.).
2Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d
69 (1986).
3Reed.
1

conclusion on the "well settled [rule] that complaints as to voir
dire error cannot be reviewed in the absence of a transcription of
the complete voir dire examination."4 A complete transcription of
the voir dire examination does not exist because Reed's counsel
informed the trial court that he did not desire the court reporter
to make such a record.5 The questioning of some panel members,
however, was recorded and there is a transcript of the Batson
hearing.
Reed did not file a petition for discretionary review by the
Court of Criminal Appeals but, rather, filed a state petition for
the writ of habeas corpus in accordance with Tex.Code
Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 11.07, alleging the Batson claim. The Court of
Criminal Appeals denied the petition without written order. Having
fully exhausted his state remedies, Reed filed the instant petition
4Id. at 610.
5Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 40.09, § 4 (West 1979)
(repealed) states, in relevant part, "[a]t the request of either
party the court reporter shall take short-hand notes of all trial
proceedings, including voir dire examination...." This provision
of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure has been repealed and
replaced, effective September 1, 1986, by Tex.R.App.Proc. 50.
Emery v. State, 800 S.W.2d 530 (Tex.Cr.App.1990) (en banc).
Nevertheless it applies to the defendant's obligation to request
the court reporter to take short-hand notes of voir dire because
the trial was completed before the effective date of
Tex.R.App.Proc. 50. Id. However, Tex.R.App.Proc. 50(d), which
states "[t]he burden is on the appellant ... to see that a
sufficient record is presented to show error requiring reversal,"
applies to the filing of the statement of facts, which were filed
on September 12, 1986, and the transcript, which was filed on
October 20, 1986. Id. at 531 & n. 2 (internal quotations
omitted) ("[A]ppellate procedures and steps completed or required
to have been completed on or after September 1, 1986, shall be
governed by the procedural requirements of the Texas Rules of
Appellate Procedures in criminal cases, regardless of when notice
of appeal was given.").
2

for the writ of habeas corpus advancing the Batson claim. The
petition was referred to a magistrate judge who issued a report and
recommendation concluding that the petition should be denied
because Reed procedurally defaulted on the Batson claim. The
district court adopted the report and recommendation and denied the
petition. Reed filed a motion for CPC which we granted.
ANALYSIS
A federal court will not review a question of federal law
decided by a state court if its decision rests on a state ground,
either substantive or procedural, that is independent of the merits
of the federal claim and is adequate to support the judgment.6 A
state ground is "independent" if the last reasoned state court
opinion7 clearly and expressly indicates that its judgment is
independent of federal law.8 A state procedural rule is adequate
only if it was firmly established at the time it was applied.9
Moreover, it must be "strictly or regularly followed by the
cognizant state court ... [and] strictly or regularly applied
evenhandedly to the vast majority of similar claims."10
The issue presented in this case is whether the state
procedural rule relied on by the court of appeals in Reed is
6Amos v. Scott, 61 F.3d 333 (5th Cir.1995).
7Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797, 111 S.Ct. 2590, 115
L.Ed.2d 706 (1991).
8Amos.
9Ford v. Georgia, 498 U.S. 411, 111 S.Ct. 850, 112 L.Ed.2d
935 (1991).
10Amos, 61 F.3d at 339 (emphasis in original).
3

adequate.11 This is a question of law that we review de novo.12
Respondent maintains that Texas courts regularly refuse to reach
alleged voir dire errors where the defendant fails to provide a
complete voir dire transcript. Respondent cites four Court of
Criminal Appeals cases to support his position.13 In each of these
cases, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that the appellant's
argument concerning voir dire error must fail because he did not
supply a complete transcript of voir dire. A close examination of
these cases, as well as Payton v. State,14 reveals that Texas law
precludes review of an alleged voir dire error if the defendant
fails to provide a sufficient record from which the court may
discern such error rather than absolutely precluding review of an
alleged voir dire error absent a complete transcription of the voir
11The court of appeals in Reed clearly and expressly
indicated that its judgment is independent of federal law. See
Reed.
12Amos.
13See e.g., Burkett v. State, 516 S.W.2d 147
(Tex.Crim.App.1974) (restriction of voir dire questioning
unreviewable absent entire record of voir dire); Graves v.
State, 513 S.W.2d 57 (Tex.Crim.App.1974) (prosecutor's improper
remarks unreviewable absent entire voir dire record); Magee v.
State, 504 S.W.2d 849 (Tex.Crim.App.1974) (court cannot determine
whether a juror improperly concealed bias in absence of complete
record of voir dire); Guerrero v. State, 487 S.W.2d 729
(Tex.Crim.App.1972) (whether court erred by refusing to excuse
members of venire for bias may not be determined without complete
voir dire transcript).
14572 S.W.2d 677 (Tex.Crim.App.1978). In Payton, the court
stated "when the issue concerns denial of a challenge for cause
or exclusion of a qualified venireman, only the examination of
the individual venireman need be in the record." Id. at 680.
The court also distinguished Burkett and other cases which
require a complete voir dire transcript to reach an alleged voir
dire error. Id.
4

dire examination.15
The cases relied upon by respondent do not control the
resolution of this matter because we must focus on the application
of the bar in the context of a Batson claim. This narrow focus is
mandated by the claim specific nature of the procedural bar and our
statement in Amos that in order to determine the adequacy of a
procedural bar we must emphasize the application of the bar to the
specific constitutional claim at issue.16
Reed is the first reported decision in which a Texas appellate
court refused to reach a Batson claim because the defendant failed
to provide a complete voir dire transcript. As such, the court of
appeals' refusal to reach Reed's Batson claim due to his failure to
provide a complete voir dire transcript "does not even remotely
satisfy the requirement ... that an adequate and independent state
procedural bar to the entertainment of constitutional claims must
have been "firmly established and regularly followed' by the time"
15See Tex.R.App.Proc. 50(d) (appellant must provide a
sufficient record from which to discern error); see also
Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art 40.09 (West 1979) (repealed).
Despite its broad statement concerning the "well settled rule"
that a court may not reach a voir dire error without a complete
voir dire transcript, the court in Reed implicitly recognized the
claim specific nature of the procedural bar by reaching the
merits of Reed's point of error concerning a challenge for cause
despite the lack of a complete transcription of voir dire.
16Amos. See also Andrews v. Deland, 943 F.2d 1162, 1190
(10th Cir.1991) ("The test ... is whether the [state] courts'
actual application of the procedural default rule to all similar
claims has been evenhanded in the vast majority of cases."),
cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1110, 112 S.Ct. 1213, 117 L.Ed.2d 451
(1992); Dugger v. Adams, 489 U.S. 401, 109 S.Ct. 1211, 103
L.Ed.2d 435 (1989) (concluding that state court faithfully
applied its procedural bar to vast majority of cases raising same
type of constitutional claim).
5

it was applied.17 Moreover, the authority cited by the respondent
indicating that Reed's application of the procedural bar has been
followed by other courts of appeal18 is inapposite because the
subsequent application of a bar does not support the conclusion
that it was firmly established at the time Reed was decided.
The judgment appealed is REVERSED and the matter is REMANDED
for further proceedings consistent herewith.

17Ford, 498 U.S. at 424, 111 S.Ct. at 857-58.
18Only one reported decision, Guilder v. State, 794 S.W.2d
765 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1990, no pet.), similarly refuses to reach a
Batson claim in the absence of a complete voir dire transcript.
Several unpublished opinions (which have no precedential value)
have applied this bar. See e.g., Sturkie v. State, 1995 WL
496619 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, no pet.); Smith v.
State, 1995 WL 26805 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1995, pet. ref'd); Black
v. State, 1993 WL 95856 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1993, no pet.); Jones
v. State, 1992 WL 296934 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1992, no
pet.); Brown v. State, 1992 WL 76538 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1992),
aff'd on other grounds, 856 S.W.2d 177 (1993); Taylor v. State,
1991 WL 284473 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1991, no pet.); Wyatt v. State,
1991 WL 134602 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1991, no pet.). Texas courts
have not been universal in refusing to reach a Batson claim in
the absence of a complete transcript. In Allen v. State, 753
S.W.2d 792 (Tex.App.--Beaumont 1988, no pet.), a Texas appeals
court decided the merits of the defendant's Batson claim after
noting the lack of a complete transcript. Similarly in Gator v.
State, 1992 WL 33163 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1992, pet. ref'd), an
unpublished case, a Texas appeals court decided the merits of the
defendant's Batson claim despite the his failure to provide a
complete transcript of voir dire.
6