United States District Court, W.D. Texas, Waco Division
PITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court are Petitioner's Application for Habeas Corpus
Relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (#1) and Respondent's
Answer (#12). Petitioner, proceeding pro se, has paid the
filing fee. For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner's
application for writ of habeas corpus is denied.
OF THE CASE
to Respondent, the Director has lawful and valid custody of
Petitioner pursuant to two judgments and sentences of the
54th District Court of McLennan County, Texas in Cause Nos.
2014-61-C2 and 2014-976-C2. In Cause No. 2014-61-C2,
Petitioner was charged by indictment with committing
aggravated sexual assault against a child, and an enhancement
paragraph alleging Petitioner had a prior conviction in 2002
for possession of methamphetamine, a controlled substance.
Ex parte Murry, WR-85, 541-01, SHCR (#13-5) at
112-15. In Cause No. 2014-976-C2, Petitioner was charged by
indictment with possessing with intent to deliver,
methamphetamine, a controlled substance, weighing between 1
and 4 grams, plus an enhancement paragraph alleging
Petitioner had a prior conviction in 2008 for possession of
methamphetamine, a controlled substance. Ex parte
Murry, WR-85, 541-02, SHCR (#13-10) at 62-63.
2, 2015, pursuant to a plea agreement, Petitioner pleaded
guilty to both causes and true to both enhancement paragraphs
and was sentenced to 30 years of imprisonment for each cause,
to run concurrently. SHCR-01 (#13-5) at 117-124; SHCR-02
(#13-10) at 65-72. Petitioner did not appeal.
filed an application for a state writ of habeas corpus
challenging each conviction on May 6, 2016. SHCR-01 (#13-5)
at 18; SHCR-02 (#13-10) at 21. On August 24, 2016, the Court
of Criminal Appeals (CCA) dismissed the application
challenging the conviction for aggravated sexual assault of a
child for failure to comply with Rule 73.1 of the Texas Rules
of Appellate Procedure. SHCR-01 (#13-1). On the same day, the
CCA denied, without written order, the application
challenging the conviction for possession of methamphetamine
with intent to deliver. SHCR-02 (#13-6).
Petitioner's Grounds for Relief
raises the following grounds for relief:
is actually innocent pursuant to Schlup v. Delo, 513
U.S. 298 (1995).
counsel was ineffective for failing to:
a. advise him of the legal ramifications of his guilty plea;
b. object to the illegal search of his home and the illegal
c. subpoena witnesses to testify regarding both the
methamphetamine and sexual assault charges;
d. sever his criminal cases.
Pet. (#1) at 6.
Request for Evidentiary Hearing
asserts that his application for habeas relief raises factual
questions, which have not been addressed by the state courts
and that the state has failed to provide Petitioner with a
full and fair hearing concerning his application. Petitioner
concludes that he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing to
resolve the factual questions left unresolved by the state
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
Supreme Court has summarized the basic principles that have
grown out of the Court's many cases interpreting the 1996
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. See
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 97-100 (2011). The
Court noted that the starting point for any federal court ...