Summary
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied a petition for panel rehearing and denied rehearing en banc in Johnson's successive federal habeas case involving an Atkins v. Virginia intellectual-disability claim. The order explains that seven judges voted for rehearing and nine voted against it, and includes a dissent arguing that circuit precedent improperly treats new scientific evidence as a new rule of constitutional law under AEDPA.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the petition for panel rehearing should be granted.
- Whether rehearing en banc should be granted under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 40 and Fifth Circuit Rule 40.
Holdings
- The court treated the petition for rehearing en banc as a petition for panel rehearing and denied panel rehearing.
- Rehearing en banc was denied because, after the court was polled at the request of one of its members, a majority did not vote in favor of rehearing.
Key quotations
“The petition for panel rehearing is DENIED. The petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED because, at the request of one of its members, the court was polled, and a majority did not vote in favor of rehearing” (at 1)
“Johnson's successive habeas application fails under AEDPA for one simple reason: His claim does not rely on a “new rule of constitutional law.”” (at 5)
“I would have granted rehearing en banc here to correct our precedent—and perhaps bring the friends and family of Maria Aparece one step closer to justice.” (at 7)
Factual background
Dexter Johnson was convicted and sentenced to death for kidnapping, raping, and murdering Maria Aparece in 2006. He later pursued direct appeals, state habeas proceedings, and multiple federal habeas petitions. In the successive federal habeas proceeding underlying the appeal, Johnson relied on Atkins v. Virginia and asserted that newer scientific evidence and diagnostic standards showed that he had intellectual disability.
Procedural history
Johnson was convicted and sentenced to death in Texas and pursued direct review, state habeas proceedings, and multiple federal habeas proceedings. In the underlying Fifth Circuit appeal, the panel addressed his successive habeas application based on Atkins and new scientific evidence. The court denied the petition for panel rehearing and denied rehearing en banc after a poll showed that a majority of participating judges did not favor rehearing.