Ayestas v. Stephens, No. 15-70015 (5th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
The Fifth Circuit previous affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's request under 18 U.S.C. 3599(f) for investigatory funding because he had not shown a substantial need that made the funds reasonably necessary to the representation. The Supreme Court subsequently held that the statute did not require a showing of substantial need and remanded.
On remand, the court held that investigatory funding was not reasonably necessary in this case, because nothing would establish the ineffectiveness of state-habeas counsel, a gateway requirement for petitioner to overcome the procedural default of his claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present certain mitigating evidence of substance abuse and mental illness. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's request for investigatory funding.
This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on March 22, 2016.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.