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. Davis

United States District Court, W.D. Texas, Austin Division

May 9, 2017

ANTHONY EUGENE MOORE
v.
LORIE DAVIS

          THE HONORABLE LEE YEAKEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          ANDREW W. AUSTIN UNITED STATES 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 Magistrate Judges.

         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 in cause number 103, 968. Petitioner was convicted of burglary of a building and was sentenced to 35 years in prison on September 12, 1990. Petitioner's conviction was affirmed on December 18, 1991. Moore v. State, No. 03-90-00270-CR (Tex. App. - Austin 1991, pet. ref'd). His petition for discretionary review was refused on May 8, 1992. Moore v. State, No. PD-0344-92. Petitioner has filed multiple state applications for habeas corpus relief challenging his convictions and revocation of parole.

         B. Petitioner's Grounds for Relief

         Petitioner raises the following grounds for relief:

         1. The subsequent application rule for state habeas petitions should not apply to petitions challenging parole;

         2. His parole was unlawfully revoked;

         3. He should have been granted clemency because burglary was reduced to a state jail felony in the “mid 90's” and

         4. He was unlawfully denied parole.

         II. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

         A. Challenge of Dismissal of ...


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.