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.

Edmondson v. Davis

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

June 20, 2017

MARK EDMONDSON, Petitioner,
v.
LORIE DAVIS, Director, [1]Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          Reed O'Connor 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, Mark Edmondson, a state prisoner confined in the Correctional Institutions Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), against Lorie Davis, Director of TDCJ, Respondent. After considering the pleadings and relief sought by Petitioner, the Court has concluded that the petition should be dismissed as time-barred.

         I. BACKGROUND

         On March 21, 1997, in the Criminal District Court Number One of Tarrant County, Texas, Case No. 0595785A, a jury found Petitioner guilty of capital murder in the robbery and shooting deaths of Michael McEachern and Kathryn Nesbit, and the trial court sentenced Petitioner to life imprisonment. Admin. R., Tr. 383, ECF No. 11-2. On appeal, the Sixth District Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed the trial court's judgment, and, after being granted permission to file an out-of-time petition for discretionary review, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals refused Petitioner's petition for discretionary review on April 17, 2002.[2] Id., Writ Rec'd 13-20, ECF No. 11-15 & Op. Issd, ECF No. 11-17; Resp't's Answer 2, ECF No. 10. Petitioner did not seek writ of certiorari or state postconviction habeas-corpus relief challenging his conviction. Pet. 3, ECF No. 1. This federal petition for federal habeas relief was filed on March 21, 2016.[3] Id. at 10.

         Petitioner was 15 years old on the date of the offense. He was originally detained as a juvenile but was later certified to be tried as an adult under Texas Family Code § 54.02. In two grounds for relief, Petitioner raises the following issues:

GROUND ONE: Whether the juvenile court properly and adequately [as a matter of procedural law] waived its jurisdiction, or otherwise invoked the criminal adult court with jurisdiction, pursuant to Texas Family Code Section § 54.02? And if not, whether the juvenile court's waiver and transfer order to a criminal district court “substantively or fundamentally deprived the convicting court of all power or jurisdictional authority to proceed against the petitioner?
GROUND TWO: Whether petitioner's counsel[]s in his juvenile transfer hearing and in his criminal trial were constitutionally ineffective for their failures to call the foregoing issues to the court's attention?

Pet'r's Mem. 5, ECF No. 1.

         Respondent contends that the petition is untimely under the federal statute of limitations or, alternatively, that Petitioner's claims are unexhausted. Resp't's Answer 3-9, ECF No. 10.

         II. LEGAL DISCUSSION

         The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (the AEDPA), effective April 24, 1996, imposes a one-year statute of limitations for filing a petition for federal habeas corpus relief. 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 ...

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.