eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2009-01

Martinez v. Quarterman ( 2009 )


Menu:
 
  •            IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
January 28, 2009
No. 09-70004                   Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
VIRGIL EURISTI MARTINEZ
Petitioner-Appellant
v.
NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN, Director, Texas Department of Criminal
Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
Respondent-Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:02-cv-718
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Petitioner Virgil Euristi Martinez (“Petitioner”) appeals the district court’s
denial of his Motion to Stay Execution. He seeks a stay of his execution so that
he can develop the basis of a claim that he is incompetent to be executed.
Petitioner candidly admits that he is currently unable to make “a substantial
threshold showing of insanity” that would entitle him to the due process
protections of Panetti v. Quarterman, ___ U.S. ____,
    127 S. Ct. 2842 
    (2007), and
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 09-70004
Ford v. Wainwright,
    477 U.S. 399 
    (1986). He asserts instead that he has made
a “colorable showing” of incompetency to be executed and that due process thus
requires this court to stay his execution and appoint counsel to assist in
developing a habeas petition to bring a Panetti/Ford claim. Cf. In re Hearn,
    376 F.3d 447 
    (5th Cir.), clarified by
    389 F.3d 122 
    (5th Cir. 2004); Wood v.
Quarterman,
    572 F. Supp. 2d 814 
    (W.D. Tex. 2008). Assuming that Ford and
Panetti apply to the present situation—and that there is a presumably-lower
threshold showing required to garner such “pre-Panetti” relief—the district court
correctly concluded that Petitioner’s evidence of incompetency was insufficient.
Volunteer counsel, in a brief span of time, was able to develop an extensive
history of mental health that still falls short of any threshold showing of
incompetency to be executed. We therefore AFFIRM the judgment of the district
court.
AFFIRMED.
2