United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION
Rosenthal Chief United States District Judge
petitioner, Kenneth Wayne Glover, seeks habeas corpus relief
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He challenges a state felony
conviction for driving while intoxicated, enhanced because it
was at least a third offense. The respondent filed a motion
to dismiss the petition for failure to exhaust available
state court remedies, with a copy of the state-court record.
Glover filed a response. (Docket Entries Nos. 15, 21 and 22).
Based on careful consideration of the pleadings, the motion
and response, the record, and the applicable law, the court
grants the respondent's motion and, by separate order,
enters final judgment. The reasons are set out below.
found Glover guilty of the felony offense of driving while
intoxicated, third offense or more. (Cause Number
11-06-06204-CR). On January 28, 2013, the jury sentenced
Glover to life imprisonment. The Ninth Court of Appeals of
Texas affirmed Glover's conviction on March 26, 2014,
reforming the judgment after concluding that the evidence was
insufficient to prove that Glover had used his vehicle as a
deadly weapon. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals refused
Glover's petition for discretionary review on February 4,
2015. Glover filed an application for state habeas corpus
relief on January 25, 2016, and the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals dismissed it as noncompliant with Rule 73.1 of the
Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure on August 10, 2016.
January 29, 2016, this court received Glover's federal
petition. Glover contends that his conviction is void
appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing
to raise the following issues on appeal:
a. a voir dire challenge on special issues;
b. the trial court's denial of his motion for
c. the trial court's improper limitation on direct
d. the State's introduction of a res gestae offense; and
e. the trial court's denial of his motion to strike
prosecutor withheld favorable information during both the
liability and punishment stages of trial;
trial court was openly biased in favor of the State; and
appellate court's decision was an unreasonable
determination of the facts from the record on appeal ...