Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Moore v. Stephens

United States District Court, Fifth Circuit

December 20, 2013

ANTHONY DEXTER MOORE
v.
WILLIAM STEPHENS, Director, Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice-Correctional Institutions Division

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ANDREW W. AUSTIN, Magistrate Judge.

The Magistrate Judge submits this Report and Recommendation to the District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b) and Rule 1(e) of Appendix C of the Local Court Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrates, as amended, effective December 1, 2002.

Before the Court is Petitioner's Application for Habeas Corpus Relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Document 1). Petitioner, proceeding pro se, has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned finds that Petitioner's application for writ of habeas corpus should be dismissed.

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

A. Petitioner's Criminal History

According to Petitioner, the Director has custody of him pursuant to a judgment and sentence of the 331st Judicial District Court of Travis County, Texas. Petitioner was convicted of delivery of a controlled substance and was sentenced to 20 years in prison on September 10, 1993. Petitioner did not appeal his conviction or sentence. He did, however, challenge his conviction in two state applications for habeas corpus relief. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied the first application without written order on June 8, 1994. Ex parte Moore, Appl. No. 26, 596-01. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed the second application as successive on January 29, 1997. Ex parte Moore, Appl. No. 26, 596-03.

B. Petitioner's Grounds for Relief

Petitioner raises the following grounds for relief:

1. The informant falsely reported he observed Petitioner participating in criminal activities;
2. Petitioner was subjected to an unreasonable search and seizure;
3. The informant's testimony was inconsistent with the June 17, 1993 offense report; and
4. The evidence was insufficient to support his conviction.

II. DISCUSSION AND ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.