Ayestas v. Davis

A funding request under 18 U.S.C. §3599(f) requires the funding applicant to show that a reasonable attorney would regard the services as sufficiently important.

Petitioner was convicted of murder and sentenced to death in a Texas court. Petitioner secured new counsel to handle his appeal, but the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Petitioner’s conviction and sentence. Eventually, Petitioner brought a federal habeas petition, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel at trial because Petitioner’s attorneys failed to investigate his mental health and substance abuse. The District Court held that the claim was barred because Petitioner did not raise the trial-level ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim in state court. The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The U.S. Supreme Court vacated and remanded the decision based on precedent that allowed a prisoner to overcome a procedural default of a trial-level ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim. Petitioner asked the District Court for funding to conduct a search for evidence to support his position. Petitioner relied on 18 U.S.C. §3599(f), which provides that a district court may authorize funding for “investigative, expert, or other services . . . reasonably necessary for the representation of the defendant.” The District Court denied the funding request, holding that petitioner must show that he has a “substantial need.” The Fifth Circuit affirmed. After establishing proper jurisdiction, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the District Court’s “substantial need” test is a heavier burden than the term “reasonably necessary” as used in the statute. VACATED AND REMANDED.