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.

Carter v. Davis

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Fort Worth Division

March 21, 2017

LARRY CARTER, Petitioner,
v.
LORIE DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          TERRY R. MEANS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Before the Court is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by petitioner, Larry Carter, a state prisoner, against Lorie Davis, director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent. After having considered the pleadings and relief sought by Petitioner, the Court has concluded that the petition must be dismissed as time-barred.

         I. Factual and Procedural History

         On February 5, 2013, in the Criminal District Court Number Four of Tarrant County, Texas, Case No. 1272810D, a jury found Petitioner guilty of possession of a controlled substance, cocaine, in the amount of four grams or more but less than two-hundred grams, with intent to deliver, and, on February 25 2013, the trial court found true the repeat-offender notice in the indictment and sentenced Petitioner in absentia to twenty-eight years' imprisonment. (Adm. R., Clerk's R. 29, 32, 44, ECF No. 9-2.) Petitioner appealed his conviction, but the Seventh Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed the trial court's judgment and, on April 16, 2014, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals refused his petition for discretionary review. (Id., Docket Sheet 1-2, ECF No. 9-3.) Petitioner did not seek a writ of certiorari. On April 14, 2015, [1]Petitioner filed a postconviction state habeas-corpus application challenging his conviction, which was denied by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals on June 17, 2015, without written order, on the findings of the trial court. (Id., WR-83, 371-01, Action Taken, ECF No. 9-21.) On October 5, 2015, [2] Petitioner filed his first federal habeas-corpus petition challenging his conviction in this Court, which was dismissed for want of prosecution on December 3, 2015. (Pet., Carter v. Stephens, Civil Action No. 4:15-CV-762, ECF Nos. 1 & 6.) This second federal petition challenging his conviction was filed on January 27, 2016. (Pet. 10, ECF No. 1.)

         II. Issues

         Petitioner raises one ground for habeas relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, and he seeks reversal and retrial. (Pet. 6-7, ECF No. 1.)

         III. Statute of Limitations

         As a threshold issue, Respondent alleges the petition is untimely under the federal statute of limitations. (Resp't's Preliminary Answer 4-8, ECF No. 10.) Title 28, United States Code, § 2244(d) imposes a one-year statute of limitations on federal petitions for writ of habeas corpus filed by state prisoners. Section 2244(d) provides:

(1) A 1-year period of limitations shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The limitations period shall run from the latest of-
(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review;
(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application created by State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the applicant was prevented from filing by such State action;
(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if that right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or
(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.
(2) The time during which a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending shall not be counted toward any ...

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.