Wilkins v. Davis, No. 15-70033 (5th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePetitioner, sentenced to death for two murders, requests investigative and expert funding to support a state clemency petition and a successive state habeas petition. The district court denied the motion for funding and also denied petitioner's attorney compensation for her work on petitioner's case. The court concluded that the district court was entitled to conclude that none of the requested funds are reasonably necessary for the preparation of petitioner's clemency petition. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion for expert and investigative funding. Furthermore, neither petitioner's appellate briefs nor the brief he filed in the district court explain why investigative or expert funding is necessary to develop the arguments he intends to raise in his successive state habeas petition. Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the requested funds. Finally, the court concluded that, because counsel acted within the scope of her appointment, she is potentially entitled to payment for her services. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's order denying CJA vouchers and remanded to allow the district court to decide whether counsel's requested fee constitutes appropriate compensation.
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.