Adrian Julian Boutte v. Eric Guerrero

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed with prejudice Adrian Julian Boutte’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petition challenged the revocation of deferred-adjudication probation, adjudication of guilt, and resulting forty-year sentence on claims including ineffective assistance of counsel, insufficient evidence, constitutional violations, prosecutorial suppression of evidence, and actual innocence.

Holdings

1. Boutte failed to establish deficient performance and prejudice under Strickland, and the state courts' rejection of his ineffective-assistance claims was not unreasonable under AEDPA.
2. Boutte's factual-sufficiency challenge was not cognizable on federal habeas review, and the revocation was constitutionally valid because it was not totally devoid of evidentiary support.
3. The Sixth Amendment does not apply to deferred-adjudication probation revocation proceedings because those proceedings are not criminal prosecutions.
4. Boutte's claims concerning the trial court's acceptance of his enhancement pleas at the original deferred-adjudication proceeding were barred by AEDPA's one-year statute of limitations.
5. Boutte was not entitled to federal habeas relief based on the trial court's evidentiary rulings absent a showing that they denied fundamental fairness, and he made no such showing.
6. Any alleged vagueness in the reporting portion of the probation condition did not warrant habeas relief because the revocation was independently supported by sufficient evidence of another violation and the alleged error did not have a substantial and injurious effect.
7. Boutte's Fourth Amendment claim was barred because he had a full and fair opportunity to litigate it in state court and, independently, failed on the merits because the arrest warrant was facially supported by probable cause.
8. Boutte failed to establish a Brady violation because he did not show that the withheld documents were material or that disclosure would probably have changed the revocation result.
9. Alleged errors in the Texas state habeas proceedings could not support federal habeas relief because they challenged collateral proceedings rather than the legality of Boutte's custody.
10. Boutte failed to satisfy the Schlup actual-innocence gateway because he identified no new, reliable evidence that was unavailable through reasonable investigation and showed that no reasonable factfinder would have found the probation violation.

Questions Presented

1. Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to confer with Boutte, investigate or call witnesses, obtain exculpatory documents, investigate the Louisiana offense, or seek suppression of statements.
2. Whether the state trial court violated federal law by revoking deferred-adjudication probation without sufficient evidence, overruling a compulsory-process objection, accepting enhancement pleas at the original proceeding, admitting testimony allegedly lacking personal knowledge, or relying on a vague probation condition.
3. Whether Boutte's arrest violated the Fourth Amendment.
4. Whether the prosecution violated Brady by withholding a letter concerning Louisiana charges and a probation contact report.
5. Whether errors in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals' handling of rehearing and state habeas proceedings support federal habeas relief.
6. Whether Boutte established actual innocence under the Schlup gateway standard.
7. Whether a certificate of appealability should issue.

Disposition

dismissed