UNITED STATES v. MUNOZ (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.2021-02-04No. No. 19-31010

Summary · law.co

Holding. The motion for a certificate of appealability is denied because Munoz failed to make the requisite showing that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong.

Javier Munoz, a federal prisoner, sought a certificate of appealability to challenge his 165-month sentence for methamphetamine possession with intent to distribute. He argued that his trial lawyer was ineffective for failing to examine video evidence from the traffic stop where drugs were seized and for not filing a motion to suppress that evidence based on the video. Munoz also wanted an evidentiary hearing on his constitutional claims.

To obtain a certificate of appealability, a defendant must demonstrate that reasonable judges could debate whether the lower court's decision was correct. The court determined that Munoz did not meet this threshold. Because he failed to show that reasonable judges would find the district court's assessment debatable or wrong, the court did not need to address whether the district court should have held a hearing on his claims.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Standard for obtaining a certificate of appealability in habeas corpus proceedings
Ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failure to investigate and use video evidence
Right to evidentiary hearing on constitutional claims

Procedural posture

Munoz, a federal prisoner, moved for a certificate of appealability to appeal the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and its refusal to hold an evidentiary hearing on his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

Javier Munoz, federal prisoner # 20457-035, moves for a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his 165-month sentence for possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. He also challenges the district courts denial of an evidentiary hearing on his constitutional claims. Munoz contends that his trial counsel failed to (1) investigate a video of the traffic stop during which the charged methamphetamine was seized and (2) move to suppress the drug evidence based on video of the traffic stop.

To obtain a COA, Munoz must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), by “show[ing] that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the [motion] should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further,” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To meet that burden, he must show that “reasonable jurists would find the district courts assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack, 529 U.S. at 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

Munoz fails to make the requisite showing. Accordingly, the motion for a COA is DENIED. As Munoz fails to make the required showing for a COA on his constitutional claims, we do not reach whether the district court erred by denying an evidentiary hearing. See United States v. Davis, 971 F.3d 524, 534-35 (5th Cir. 2020).

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE

Per Curiam:*

FN* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.