Revised August 19, 1998
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _______________
No. 97-50875 _______________
MARTIN SAUCEDA VEGA,
Petitioner-Appellant,
VERSUS
GARY L. JOHNSON, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division,
Respondent-Appellee.
_________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas _________________________
July 30, 1998
Before SMITH, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge:
Martin Vega, who confessed to a murder-for-hire, seeks habeas
corpus relief from a sentence of death. The federal district court
denied relief. Because most of Vega’s claims are entirely meritless
and the others are barred by Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989),
we affirm. I.
In July 1985, after receiving a report of a homicide, Sheriff
Mike Bading discovered the body of James Mims lying alongside a
road. Bading and other officers arriving at the same time
recovered several items belonging to Mims, including a comb, a
screwdriver-type key chain, a pocket knife, and some change. They
also found three spent .22 caliber cartridges.
Mims’s skull had been hit with a blunt object, possibly a
handgun, and he had been shot eight times; his shirt was saturated
with blood, and the rest of his clothes were wet from a source
other than blood. One of the bullets had passed through his lung,
aorta, and heart, probably causing his death. Two .22 caliber
bullets were removed from his body and analyzed.
Vega confessed to the murder in January 1988. He stated that
Linda Mims had encouraged him to murder her husband, promising to
marry him afterward and to give him $30,000 of the $150,000 life
insurance proceeds. Vega did in fact marry her and enjoyed
substantial sums of money obtained from insurance proceeds.
In one of his statements, Vega revealed the location of the
alleged murder weapon, a .22 caliber handgun. This weapon, along
with the cartridges allegedly fired by the handgun but not found at
the murder scene, were at the specified location and presented at
trial. Vega also explained that the victim was wet because of a
failed attempt to drown him. Vega insisted that Linda Mims be
arrested immediately upon his confession.
2 Vega made one statement in his handwriting and signed it in
the presence of two officers; subsequently he made other statements
containing details of the events relating to the murder. He
received Miranda warnings before confessing.
II.
A.
Vega was indicted for capital murder in February 1988, charged
with shooting Mims for the promise of remuneration. William
Rugeley was appointed to represent Vega. The trial court found
that Vega's confession and related statements were made voluntarily
and were legally admissible at trial.
Vega apparently disagreed with Rugeley about his defense, so
in August 1988 he filed a pro se motion to dismiss Rugeley because
they did “not agree with each other and [could] not see eye to
eye”; Vega claimed he had funds to hire his own attorney who would
better serve his interests. At a hearing held in October, the
court informed Vega that Rugeley would continue to represent him
until he retained counsel of his own, at which time Rugeley would
be removed. At no time thereafter did Vega indicate that he had
employed counsel.
In January 1989, eleven days before trial, Rugeley filed a
motion to withdraw, stating that Vega had refused to communicate
with him. The court allowed Vega to state his position, which at
3 that time was that Rugeley had told him to plead guilty even though
he was innocent. Rugeley stated that Vega would not cooperate with
him, which would cause him to be unprepared for trial. The court
refused to remove Rugeley at that late date.
B.
The jury found Vega guilty. He testified only at the
punishment phase, at which the state introduced evidence of
previous extraneous offenses as aggravating factors. These
offenses included the alleged forcible detention and rape at
gunpoint of one Shirley Barnard in 1984. Although in that case
Vega was indicted on a sexual assault charge, the charge was
subsequently dropped when the government was unable to locate the
victim to testify. Instead, the government proceeded to trial on
a felon-in-possession charge based on Vega’s supposed use of a gun
in the alleged rape. Vega was acquitted of this charge and of the
lesser included offense of unlawful possession of a handgun.
During the punishment phase of the 1989 capital murder trial,
the state called Barnard to testify to the alleged rape,
emphasizing Vega's future dangerousness. The jury apparently found
this information significant, because it asked to re-examine the
evidence of the firearm trial and Barnard’s testimony. Vega was
convicted and appealed to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals,
submitting pro se briefs and motions in addition to those filed by
4 Rugeley.
III.
Vega argues that the state violated his due process rights by
allowing the prosecution to employ, at the appellate stage of the
litigation only, Charles Kimbrough, an attorney who had represented
Vega during his felon-in-possession trial. Although Kimbrough
apparently played no role until after that conviction was obtained,
and was limited to the trial record in his briefs and arguments,
Vega asks us to find that Kimbrough’s involvement made the murder
trial fundamentally unfair and that he is entitled to habeas
relief. Because such a holding would be an extension of prior law
about which reasonable minds could disagree, Teague bars the relief
Vega requests.
In Teague, the Court held that federal courts may not create
new constitutional rules of criminal procedure on habeas review.
A new rule is one which was not “dictated by precedent existing at
the time the petitioner’s conviction became final.” 489 U.S.
at 301. A new rule is created if the rule is, “in light of this
Court’s precedent, 'susceptible to debate among reasonable minds.'”
O’Dell v. Netherland, 117 S. Ct. 1969, 1974 (1997) (citing Butler
v. McKellar, 494 U.S. 407, 415 (1990)). Accordingly, we must
examine existing precedent and decide whether, under that
precedent, relief is required. If reasonable minds could differ on
5 whether current law requires relief, we may not grant relief
without creating a “new rule” barred by Teague.
No court of which we are aware has considered the fact
scenario presented here. In general, our jurisprudence has
considered two relevant types of conflict-of-interest claims:
“multiple representation” and “switching sides.” Multiple
representation occurs when an attorney represents multiple parties
with conflicting interests, possibly influencing him to reject a
strategy that would produce optimal results for one client, in
order to improve results for another. See, e.g., Cuyler v.
Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (1980). Switching sides occurs when an
attorney starts out representing one party, then represents an
adverse party in the same or related litigation. The extent to
which jurisprudence developed in the multiple representation
context may be applied to the switching sides context is currently
unresolved.1
This is a case of switching sides, but not of doing so in the
course of a single litigation matter. In such a case, the ethical
duty of loyalty prevents Kimbrough from acting against Vega's
interests. That duty lasted only as long as the litigation matter,
however, and then ceased to restrict Kimbrough's options. See,
1 See Hernandez v. Johnson, 108 F.3d 554, 559 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 447 (1997) (noting that this circuit “has limited Cuyler to actual conflicts resulting from a lawyer’s representation of multiple criminal defendants,” and assuming arguendo that Cuyler could apply where a criminal defendant’s lawyer had previously served as district attorney when cases were pending against the defendant in that district).
6 e.g., McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S. 171, 175 (1991). Once the
matter ended, Kimbrough's only duty was to protect confidential
information he received in his capacity as attorney.
If Kimbrough had represented Vega in the possession case and
then prosecuted him at the trial level here, we would have to ask
only whether the matters were substantially related. If so, the
potential for abuse of confidential information obtained through
the prior representation would be high, and Vega’s trial likely
would be deemed fundamentally unfair if Vega had called this
conflict to the trial court’s attention, or the conflict was
obvious to the court. See Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475, 490
(1978). Because neither this circuit nor the Supreme Court has
considered a situation in which a prosecutor formerly represented
the defendant, however, even this might require a new rule.
Still more divorced from existing precedent is the scenario
presented here. Not only have we never held that a defendant’s
former attorney may not handle an appeal against him in a
subsequent case, but we would be unlikely to do so without applying
a harmless error standard. Unlike the multiple representation
standard addressed in Holloway, where prejudice is both likely and
difficult to identify, the situation here presents little risk of
harm to Vega’s interests, and there is an easy way to spot abuse
should it occur.
Kimbrough was limited to the trial record on appeal and could
7 not supplement it with facts or observations taken from his prior
representation. The only way to abuse his confidential information
would be to introduce such extraneous information and hope that the
appellate court, while pretending to ignore it as outside the
record, would be influenced. Yet Vega fails to point out any
instances in which information outside the record was introduced on
appeal. Because we could easily identify such a use of
confidential information were it present, the argument against
harmless error set forth in Holloway does not apply.2
Vega points to Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Lavoie, 475 U.S. 813,
828 (1986), for the proposition that even the appearance of
impropriety requires reversal. That case involved the reversal of
a state supreme court decision written by a justice whose opinion
would have provided precedent favorable to him in a lawsuit he had
pending at the time of writing. The Court held that the justice
had a conflict of interest and should have been disqualified; its
statement that “the 'appearance of justice' will best be served by
vacating the decision and remanding for further proceedings” in no
way suggested that a decision should be reversed on the basis of a
speculative conflict merely in order to maintain the appearance of
justice. Id. To the contrary, the Court suggested otherwise in
Cuyler, where it held that a defendant who fails to object to
2 See id. (“In the normal case where a harmless-error rule is applied, the error occurs at trial and its scope is readily identifiable . . . .”).
8 multiple representation must show more than a “mere possibility of
a conflict of interest” in order to obtain relief. See Cuyler, 446
U.S. at 350.
Vega makes no effort to explain how the possession of
confidential information could have helped the prosecutor’s office,
and harmed him, at the appeals stage. Even assuming he could
demonstrate some possibility of prejudice, however, reasonable
minds could differ as to whether current precedent supported
relief. Under Teague, we are barred from creating a new rule of
law in order to grant relief on this issue.
IV.
Vega contends that collateral estoppel prevented the state
from introducing, at the penalty phase, evidence of his possession
of a handgun and sexual assault. He points out that the sexual
assault and felon-in-possession charges were brought together, that
the sexual assault charge was dropped, that the alleged sexual
assault was nevertheless discussed at his felon-in-possession
trial, and that he was acquitted of being a felon in possession.
Because evidence of prior acts may be introduced despite an
acquittal if the standard of proof in the second prosecution is
lower, Vega’s claim must fail.
In Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (1970), the Court held that
collateral estoppel is a requirement of due process under the
9 double jeopardy doctrine. In Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S.
342, 349 (1990), however, the Court held that “an acquittal in a
criminal case does not preclude the Government from relitigating an
issue when it is presented in a subsequent action governed by a
lower standard of proof.”3 Extraneous offenses offered at the
punishment phase of a capital trial need not be proven beyond a
reasonable doubt.4
Even assuming, therefore, that the state would have been
collaterally estopped from prosecuting Vega for the sexual assault
charge, introducing evidence of the offense at the punishment phase
of his capital murder trial was not improper. Similarly, although
the felon-in-possession charge certainly could not have formed the
basis of a new prosecution, it could be introduced as evidence of
Vega’s future dangerousness, because the jury decided only that the
government had not proven the elements of the felon-in-possession
offense beyond a reasonable doubt, and had not considered the
evidence under any lower standard of proof.
In addition, Dowling allows the introduction of evidence in a
subsequent prosecution “if the prior acquittal did not determine an
ultimate issue in the present case.” 493 U.S. at 348. In Dowling,
3 See also United States v. Brackett, 113 F.3d 1396, 1401 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 341 (1997) (evidence admissible if second proceeding does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt). 4 See Harris v. Johnson, 81 F.3d 535 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1227 (1996); Turner v. Johnson, 106 F.3d 1178, 1189 (5th Cir.), petition for writ of habeas corpus denied, 118 S. Ct. 27 (1997); Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (1988); United States v. Mir, 919 F.2d 940, 943 (5th Cir. 1993).
10 evidence of a prior robbery was appropriately introduced, because
the former alleged victim had seen the defendant and could testify
as to his identity. This information could have been relevant to
the jury, even if it did not believe that the defendant committed
the crime previously charged. Id. Moreover, we held in Brackett
that evidence of intent to possess marihuana could be offered at a
subsequent trial for conspiracy to possess with intent, despite a
prior acquittal at the actual-possession trial. In Brackett,
although the government reintroduced evidence of the defendant’s
actual possession, it did so only as evidence to support his
agreement to engage in a conspiracy; because the actual possession
was not necessary to a conspiracy conviction, the prior acquittal
did not determine an ultimate fact in the conspiracy trial. See
Brackett, 113 F.3d at 1400-01.
In this case, therefore, the evidence is obviously admissible.
Not only did the prior acquittal fail to determine the ultimate
fact at issue hereSSwhether Vega posed a threat of future
dangerousness to societySSand not only did the prior acquittal fail
to resolve any questions with respect to the sexual assault, but
the evidence was admissible also because the standard of proof at
the punishment hearing was lower than that at the original criminal
trial.
V.
11 Vega claims the trial court erred by failing to appoint new
counsel when Vega called to the court's attention a conflict with
his appointed counsel. This claim is meritless, because the court
had no duty to appoint new counsel.
Vega’s stated conflict was that his attorney recommended he
plead guilty, whereas Vega wanted to continue asserting his
innocence. Had the attorney refused to allow him to enter a not
guilty plea, he would have violated his ethical duty to allow Vega
to choose the broad limits of the representation. See, e.g., Jones
v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 753 (1982). In fact, however, the
attorney proceeded to trial on a not guilty plea, and although he
expressed concerns that Vega refused to communicate with him,
thereby reducing his efficacy, neither he nor Vega claimed any
practical conflicts. In addition, Vega and his counsel were often
seen conferring at trial, and Vega points to no aspects of the
representation that he asked to have done differently.
Furthermore, Vega never asked the court to appoint another
lawyer. He did file a motion requesting leave to retain his own
counsel, and the court stated that the request would be granted,
and his appointed counsel removed, as soon as Vega informed the
court he had retained counsel of his choosing. Eleven days before
trial, appointed counsel asked to withdraw, stating that no counsel
had been appointed and that Vega had refused to communicate with
him. It was only at this time that Vega identified the
12 philosophical differences between himself and his attorney. Even
then, however, he failed to request the appointment of new counsel.
The court’s inability to read his mind certainly does not
constitute a constitutional violation.
Although he attempts to put the onus on the court to
investigate the potential conflict by citing Holloway, Vega
confuses “conflict” in its generic sense with the term of art
“conflict of interest.” When an attorney labors under a conflict
of interest, he is prevented, by his own self interest or by his
interest in another’s welfare, from vigorously promoting the
welfare of his client. Vega does not allege that his counsel was
so burdened.
Rather, he alleges that his counsel gave him advice he did not
want to hear. Given that the attorney accepted Vega’s decision not
to take that advice, the existence of any “conflict” worth mention
is dubious. At most, Vega and his attorney had a “conflict” with
respect to trial strategy, a problem with no constitutional
significance as long as Vega's wishes were respected on ultimate
issues such as pleading guilty and testifying.
VI.
Vega claims he was denied the right to present his own defense
under Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), because the trial
court refused to investigate his allegations that conflicts existed
13 between himself and Rugeley. He claims it is “well documented
before, during and after trial that Petitioner’s desired defense
was not being pursued.” He offers no facts from the record to
support this contention, however; it appears his only expression of
discontent was a complaint that Rugeley recommended he plead
guiltySSa recommendation that was not followed, as the case
proceeded to trial. Vega’s claim fails, because he did not provide
sufficient notice to the court that his desired defense was not
being pursued, and because to grant relief we would have to extend
the Faretta right of self-representation beyond its current
boundary as established by the Supreme Court and by this court,
creating a new rule of law barred by Teague.
Vega relies primarily on Moreno v. Estelle, 717 F.2d 171 (5th
Cir. 1983), yet in that case we denied relief under facts similar
to these. Moreno told the court on the day of trial that he wanted
his retained attorney to withdraw from the case because “[s]he
isn’t helping me. I have asked her to do things for me and
everything and I can’t get her to do anything. My people pay her
and I don’t want her.” Id. at 174. We denied relief because
Moreno made no attempt to request that he be able to proceed pro se
and did not explicitly inform the court of the defenses his
attorney had allegedly refused to investigate or present. Id. at
174-76.
Furthermore, despite Vega’s characterization to the contrary,
14 Moreno did not establish that a defendant has a right to force his
attorney to present his defenses. At most, we suggested that once
the court is notified that counsel refuses to present a defendant’s
preferred defenses, Faretta may require the court to ensure that
the defendant knows of his option to represent himself rather than
continue to accept the services of his uncooperative attorney. Id.
at 175. Even there, our statement was too weak to establish a rule
of law about which reasonable minds would not disagree: “If the
defendant can state particular instances of disagreement . . . as
to viable defenses, the defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights as
defined in Faretta are arguably implicated.” Id.
Moreover, neither this court nor the Supreme Court has held
that a defendant may force his attorney to present a defense with
which the attorney does not agree or acquire new court-appointed
counsel until he finds an attorney who agrees with him. See Jones
v. Barnes, 463 U.S. at 753 (counsel need not present every non-
frivolous argument suggested by the defendant). In United States
v. Moore, 706 F.2d 538 (5th Cir. 1983), a conscientious district
court allowed Moore to replace his court-appointed counsel with
different court-appointed counsel three times before finally
finding that he had waived his right to counsel. We rejected
Moore’s contention that he had a right to an attorney who agreed
with him and would present his case in the way Moore thought
proper: “A defendant is entitled to an attorney who will consider
15 the defendant’s views and seek to accommodate all reasonable
requests with respect to trial preparation and trial tac-
tics . . . . [He] has no right to an attorney who will docilely do
as he is told.” Id. at 540.
Vega’s citation to Henderson v. Sargent, 926 F.2d 706, 711
(8th Cir. 1991), for the proposition that the choice not to present
a defense is not part of trial strategy is inapposite: In that
case, the defendant’s attorney failed to investigate a promising
defense that the defendant did not allege he had suggested but
which would have been discovered with proper trial preparation.
While choosing among possible defenses is unquestionably part of
trial strategy and therefore is subject to considerable deference,
the failure properly to investigate possible defenses is part of
adequate preparation and receives stricter examination.5 Even if
we were to find that Vega did present sufficient evidence to the
trial court that his attorney refused to present his defenses,
therefore, Teague would bar relief, because a constitutional right
to relief under those circumstances has not been established.
VII.
Vega also argues that the state court erred by refusing his
request to represent himself on appeal. A defendant does have a
5 See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 690-91 (1983) (noting that strategic choices based on reasonable investigation are “virtually unchallengeable” and that reasonable professional judgments must support limitations on investigation).
16 right to submit briefs pro se on appeal. See Myers v. Collins,
8 F.3d 249, 252 (5th Cir. 1993). Because Myers was not decided
until after Vega’s appeal became final, however, it was not
available to the state court when ruling on Vega’s request. Pre-
Myers caselaw did not mandate the result in that case, so Myers
created a new rule of constitutional law, and we will not grant
habeas relief because the state court failed to predict its
creation.6
Vega claims that the right to self-representation created by
Faretta dictated that he be allowed to represent himself on appeal.
More significantly, the Texas courts have repeatedly held that a
criminal defendant has a right to submit pro se briefs on appeal,
although he has no right to present oral argument. See, e.g., Webb
v. State, 533 S.W.2d 780 (Tex. Crim. 1976). Texas courts have also
held, however, that the right to self-representation on appeal is
protected where the defendant is permitted to submit pro se briefs
and his motions to copy the record and receive notifications are
granted. See Hathorn v. State, 848 S.W.2d 101, 123 (Tex. Crim.
1993). Vega apparently made no attempt to copy the record or
receive other information, but he did submit briefs and motions,
some of which were granted, so the right to self-representation as
6 See Saffle v. Parks, 494 U.S. 484, 488 (1990) (the question is “whether a state court considering [the defendant’s] claim at the time his conviction became final would have felt compelled by existing precedent to conclude that the rule [he] seeks was required by the Constitution”).
17 developed by the Texas courts was not infringed.
Because the extent and requirements of the right of self-
representation on appeal have yet to be established in Texas or in
this circuit, a rule holding that the right was violated in these
circumstances would be a new rule of constitutional law barred by
Teague. Even assuming that the right to present pro se briefs on
appeal is established for Teague purposes, we have not established
a rule requiring the court to remove the defendant’s previous
attorney from the case or spontaneously to provide him with the
trial record and other documents he might find helpful in writing
his briefs. Nor have we established what relief is appropriate
where the defendant is permitted to exercise his right only
partially. Because the answers to both these questions remain open
to debate among reasonable minds, Vega’s claim is barred by Teague.
VIII.
Vega’s claims of ineffective assistance are easily dismissed.
He chastises his counsel for failing to move for a directed verdict
at the close of the government’s evidence on the ground that his
confession was not properly corroborated. He also claims his
counsel erred in failing to file a motion for new trial on the
basis that the sexual assault evidence should have been barred by
collateral estoppel. Vega’s claims fail, because his counsel did
not err in either of these respects, and because his second claim
18 is procedurally barred.
Vega suggests that the state failed properly to corroborate
his confession because it allegedly did not corroborate it with
respect to each element of the “corpus delicti” of capital murder.
Texas law appears to require that the state present evidence
tending to prove that “a crime was committed” and that in the case
of a confession to capital murder, the “corpus delicti” includes
the crime making the murder capital, as well as the homicide
itself. See Gribble v. State, 808 S.W.2d 65, 71 (Tex. Crim. App.
1990). The court stressed, however, that the evidence need not be
sufficient to prove any element of the offense, but rather that the
evidence must render the corpus delicti more probable than it would
be without the evidence. Id. at 72. This is a low evidentiary
standard, and counsel did not act unreasonably in concluding that
the prosecution had met it.
Testimony established that Vega and Linda Mims began a
relationship prior to the murder and were married shortly
thereafter; that Linda Mims received substantial life insurance
proceeds and other moneys from the victim’s estate; and that Vega
shared the benefits of this income. A reasonable jury certainly
could have found these facts sufficient to corroborate Vega’s
detailed confession.
Vega’s claim that counsel should have filed a motion for new
trial on grounds of collateral estoppel was not presented in his
19 state habeas petitions. It is therefore unexhausted and
procedurally barred under Nobles v. Johnson, 127 F.3d 409, 423 (5th
Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 1845 (1998), and Emery v.
Johnson, 139 F.3d 191, 196 (5th Cir. 1997). In addition, given the
Court of Criminal Appeals's finding that the estoppel issue was
without merit, Vega’s counsel could hardly have committed an
egregious error in failing to make the argument before the trial
court.
IX.
At trial, the state failed to disclose that Shirley Barnard,
who testified that Vega brutally raped her at gunpoint, had a
pending felony indictment. Vega claims the failure to disclose
this information deprived him of a fair trial. His claim can
succeed, however, only if the prosecution knew or should have known
of this evidence, and if it was “material either to guilt or
punishment.” Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
To prevail on a Brady claim, the defendant must demonstrate
that (1) the prosecution suppressed evidence; (2) the evidence was
favorable to him; and (3) the evidence was “material either to
guilt or punishment.” Brady, 373 U.S. at 87. When prosecutors are
unaware of the information, the defendant must show that the
prosecution could have obtained the information through “a routine
check of FBI and state crime databases, including a witness' state
20 'rap sheet.'” East v. Scott, 55 F.3d 996, 1003 (5th Cir. 1995).
Vega’s argument fails, because the information was not material,
exculpatory evidence and because he did not demonstrate that the
prosecution knew, or should have known, of it.
The existence of an indictment, as opposed to a conviction, is
not generally admissible to impeach.7 Under Texas law, the
existence of the indictment becomes admissible only if the witness,
on direct examination, misrepresents himself as having “no trouble
with the law.” See, e.g. Prescott v. State, 744 S.W.2d 128, 130-31
(Tex. Crim. App. 1988). Here, the statement was made on cross-
examination.
The only other exception, for witnesses whose testimony might
be affected by the indictment, does not apply, because Vega has
alleged no relationship between that prosecution and his case.
See, e.g., Moore v. Kemp, 809 F.2d 702 (11th Cir. 1987) (witness
received a deal for testifying). Accordingly, the information
would not have been admissible and could not have been material
information for the defense.
Furthermore, the district court found that Vega had submitted
insufficient evidence to support his claim that the prosecution
knew or should have known of the pending indictment in another
county. Specifically, the court found that Vega had not alleged
7 See, e.g., Michelson v. United States, 335 U.S. 469, 482 (1948) (noting that “[o]nly a conviction [] may be inquired about to undermine the trustworthiness of a witness”); Bell v. State, 620 S.W.2d 116, 125 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980).
21 the prosecution knew about the indictment; had not demonstrated
that the prosecution could have discovered the indictment with a
routine state and FBI criminal history check; and had not produced
evidence sufficient to demonstrate conclusively that the person
named in the indictment was the same Shirley Barnard who testified
at his trial. We accord a presumption of correctness to these
findings and see no reason to disturb them. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(d) (1997).
X.
Vega asserts that “because he is innocent of the unadjudicated
extraneous aggravated sexual assault and the St. Louis murder
alleged by the state during the capital punishment phase his
conviction and death sentence need to be vacated.” At best, he
makes a claim that he is ineligible for the death penalty; the
underlying conviction would be unaffected. In addition, his claim
of actual innocence fails because he does not raise new evidence
demonstrating his innocence of these alleged offenses, and we will
not disturb the jury’s implicit finding that he committed these
crimes.
To support his claim that he is innocent of the sexual assault
of Barnard, Vega offers the “rape report” held inadmissible at
trial but considered at the evidentiary hearing in August 1994.
This evidence was available for trial, but held inadmissible. He
22 also refers to a report, admitted at trial, prepared by
criminologist J.R. Urbanovsky for the Texas Department of Public
Safety. Finally, he refers to alleged conflicts between Barnard’s
testimony at his sentencing hearing and the testimony of Lindsey
Thomas at the felon-in-possession trial.
This information was available to Vega at trial. To the
extent that any of this information could have affected the jury’s
conclusion regarding the alleged sexual assault, it was either
available or excluded as a matter of law. Accordingly, we have no
basis for setting aside the verdict.
Vega also alleges that he is innocent of the St. Louis murder
to which he had confessed. As in the case of the sexual assault,
any evidence on this subject was presumably available at trial; we
cannot be certain of this, because Vega fails to specify what
evidence he relies upon to prove his assertion. With neither a
legal nor a factual basis for considering this contention, we
reject it.
Vega cites several cases to support his final claim, none of
which offers him support. In Johnson v. Mississippi, 486 U.S. 578
(1988), the Court ordered habeas relief where, after the jury had
imposed a death sentence, an assault conviction considered by the
jury was vacated. This new evidence, the Court held, created doubt
about the validity of the sentence. Id. at 585. Here, in
contrast, no new evidence suggests Vega's innocence of the
23 extraneous offenses.
Vega relies on two other inapposite cases: Townsend v. Burke,
334 U.S. 736 (1948), which involved a guilty plea obtained through
misrepresentation by the prosecution and/or misreading of
information by the court, and Hance v. Zant, 696 F.2d 940, 950-53
(11th Cir. 1983), which involved prosecutorial misconduct in the
nature of inflammatory presentation of the evidence. Neither of
these cases is remotely relevant.
Meanwhile, Vega ignores Lucas v. Johnson, 132 F.3d 1069, 1074
(5th Cir. 1998), cert. dismissed, 1998 U.S. LEXIS 4460 (U.S.
July 17, 1998) (No. 97-9463), in which we stated the “-
extraordinarily high threshold” for newly discovered evidence
demonstrating actual innocence, which includes the requirement that
the evidence be newly discovered and unknown to the defendant at
the time of the trial and the requirement that the evidence be
“material, not merely cumulative or impeaching.” Vega also alleges
baldly that the use of his St. Louis murder confession was
“unfair,” ignoring this court’s repeated holding that such
unadjudicated extraneous offenses may be admitted.8
Vega has failed to offer sufficient factual and legal
justification for any of his claims. We therefore AFFIRM the
denial of habeas corpus relief.
8 See, e.g., Duff-Smith v. Collins, 973 F.2d 1175, 1184 (5th Cir. 1992); Williams v. Lynaugh, 814 F.2d 205, 207-08 (5th Cir. 1987).