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.

Woodall v. Davis

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

May 8, 2017

THOMAS R. WOODALL, Petitioner,
v.
LORIE DAVIS, Director, [1] 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 writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by petitioner, Thomas R. Woodall, a state prisoner, against Lorie Davis, director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division (TDCJ), Respondent. After having considered the petition and relief sought by Petitioner, the Court has concluded that the petition should be dismissed as time-barred.

         I. Factual and Procedural Background

         On December 7, 2000, in the 371st Judicial District Court, Tarrant County, Texas, Case No. 0728015D, a jury found Petitioner guilty of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and, on February 12, 2001, the trial court assessed his punishment at twenty years' confinement. (Pet. 2, ECF No. 1; Adm. R., SH05WR- 58, 137-03, 33, ECF No. 15-6.) Petitioner was subsequently released on parole on November 16, 2009. (Adm. R., SH05WR-58, 137-03, 21, ECF No. 15-6.)

         Petitioner asserted in his state habeas-corpus application that, on February 24, 2013, he was arrested and jailed in Kankakee County, Illinois, on a charge of unlawful possession of a controlled substance, where he remained incarcerated until his trial. Petitioner claimed that he was unable to make bond on the Illinois case because the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles (BOP) had issued a “blue warrant/detainer-hold” against him on or about February 24, 2013. (Id.) Petitioner asserted that he was convicted of the new charge and sentenced to four years' confinement, and, on September 15, 2013, he was transferred to the Illinois Department of Corrections for service of his sentence. (Adm. R., SH05WR-58, 137-03, 7, ECF No. 15-6.) While incarcerated there, his Texas parole was revoked. (Id. at 21.) After completing his Kankakee County sentence, Petitioner contends that he was returned to TDCJ on February 25, 2015, pursuant to the Texas “blue warrant/detainer.” (Id. at 7-8.) Petitioner sought time credit from February 24, 2013, to the present toward his Tarrant County sentence.

         Charley Valdez, a Program Supervisor III for the Classification and Records Department of TDCJ, submitted an affidavit providing the following information:

A pre-revocation warrant of arrest was issued on 4-4-2013 by the Parole Division, and executed on 9-15-2013 in the Illinois Department of Corrections, Hillsboro, IL. Applicant's parole was revoked on 3-11-2014, while he was in the Illinois Department of Corrections. Applicant was returned to TDCJ custody on 2-25-2015. Because Applicant was serving an offense listed under Section 508.149(a), Texas Government Code (aggravated assault w/dw) at the time of revocation, he was not eligible for “street-time” credit and was charged with out of custody for time spent on supervision, 3-years, 9-months, and 29-days. Tex. Gov's Code § 508.283(c).

(Id. (citation to ex. omitted).)

         Based on Valdez's affidavit, the state habeas court entered the following factual findings:

5. The Pre-Revocation Warrant was issued on April 4, 2013.
6. The Pre-Revocation Warrant was executed on September 15, 2013.
7. Applicant has received flat time credit from September 15, 2013, to his return to TDCJ custody on February 25, 2015.
8. Applicant presents no evidence to support his claim that he was held on a blue warrant in this case from February 24, ...

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.