Housel v. Head

238 F.3d 1289 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 18, 2001

Full text

Housel v. Head

Opinions in this case

Tracy Lee HOUSEL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Frederick J. HEAD, Respondent-Appellee. No. 98-8830. United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. April 6, 2001. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (No. 94-01444-1-CV-ODE); Orinda D. Evans, Judge. ON PETITION FOR REHEARING Before DUBINA, CARNES and COX, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Appellant Tracy Lee Housel has petitioned this court for rehearing and has suggested rehearing en banc. Among other arguments, he points out that the court misspoke in describing the concurring opinion in Devier v. Zant, 3 F.3d 1445 (11th Cir.1993), and that the court did not discuss the large body of state-court authority concerning the treatment of unadjudicated crimes in capital sentencing. We GRANT the petition for panel rehearing to make two changes to our opinion, which is published at 238 F.3d 1289 . First, the sentence "But it has never been accepted in any form by a majority of this court or the Supreme Court," found on page 1297, is replaced with "But no Supreme Court majority has ever accepted it, and two judges of this court espoused it only in dicta." Second, the sentence that begins "Perhaps since last a court visited the question ...," also found on page 1297, should begin "Perhaps since last this court or the Supreme Court visited the question...." The petition is otherwise DENIED. No member of this panel nor any other judge in regular active service on the court having requested that the court be polled on rehearing en banc, the suggestion of rehearing en banc is also DENIED.

Parentheticals

noting that a “failure to investigate can be deficient performance in a capital case when counsel totally fails to inquire into the defendant’s past or present behavior or life history”
Andrew Grant DeYoung v. Derrick Schofield
explaining that “a 51 Case: 12-15581 Date Filed: 10/15/2013 Page: 52 of 79 failure to investigate can be deficient performance in a capital case when counsel totally fails to inquire into the defendant’s past or present behavior or life history”
Carl Puiatti v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections
finding reasonable counsel’s choice to employ a humanizing penalty phase strategy that emphasized the defendant’s “family-friendly side” instead of presenting evidence of his intoxication on the night of the murder
Leroy Pooler v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections
finding counsel reasonably forwent additional mental health investigation where a retained expert did not “offer[] any encouragement to proceed further”
Gregory Lawler v. Warden
finding no deficient performance in counsel’s failure to investigate and present mental health evidence of brain damage and hypoglycemic irritability episodes because (1) counsel reviewed two psychological evaluations that did not suggest a need to investigate further, (2
Leroy Pooler v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections
“A failure to investigate can be deficient performance in a capital case when counsel totally fails to inquire into the defendant’s past or present behavior or life history.”
Fugate v. Head
to determine whether rule sought by habeas petitioner was dictated by precedent, inquiry is "whether ... the unlawfulness of [petitioner's] conviction was apparent to all reasonable jurists" (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)
Burdine v. Johnson
attorney instructed petitioner to “prepare a life history to help with the investigation” and contacted petitioner’s family members
Carl Puiatti v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections
counsel not ineffective for failing to pursue mental health investigation where counsel observed nothing unusual about the petitioner’s behavior, and even testified that the petitioner was one of counsel’s “most intelligent” clients
Eric Lynn Ferrell v. Hilton Hall