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.

Lane v. Director TDCJ-CID

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

June 22, 2017

DOIL EDWARD LANE
v.
DIRECTOR TDCJ-CID

          ORDER

          ROBERT PITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Before the Court are Petitioner's Application for Habeas Corpus Relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Memorandum in Support, and Response to Show Cause Order. Petitioner, proceeding pro se, has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner's application for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed as time-barred.

         I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

         A. Petitioner's Criminal History

         Petitioner challenges the Director's custody of him pursuant to a judgment and sentence of the 22nd Judicial District Court of Hays County, Texas, in cause number CR-93-454. After a jury trial, Petitioner was found guilty of capital murder and was sentenced to death. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Petitioner's conviction and sentence on direct appeal. Lane v. State, 933 S.W.2d 504 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). On March 9, 2007, the Governor commuted Petitioner's sentence to life in prison. Petitioner now challenges his conviction in a federal application for habeas corpus relief.

         B. Petitioner's Grounds for Relief

         Petitioner appears to argue he is actually innocent.

         II. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

         A. Statute of Limitations

         Federal law establishes a one-year statute of limitations for state inmates seeking federal habeas corpus relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). That section provides, in relevant part:

(d)(1) A 1-year period of limitation 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 limitation 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 prevented from filing by such State action;
(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made ...

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.