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.

Dawson v. Davis

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

November 15, 2017

RONALD EARL DAWSON
v.
LORIE DAVIS

          ORDER

          Sam Sparks united states district judge

         Before the Court are Petitioner Ronald Earl Dawson's Application for Habeas Corpus Relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Document 1) and response to the Court's order to show cause (Document 7). Petitioner, proceeding pro se, has paid the filing fee for this case. For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner's application is 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 21 st Judicial District Court of Burleson County, Texas. After entering a guilty plea, Petitioner was convicted of aggravated robbery. The court sentenced Petitioner to 45 years in prison. Petitioner admits he did not appeal his conviction. He did, however, challenge his conviction in several state applications for habeas corpus relief, the earliest of which was filed in 2006.

         B. Petitioner's Grounds for Relief

         Petitioner asserts he received ineffective assistance of counsel and the trial court abused its discretion by failing to conduct a competency hearing.

         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.