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.

Dixon v. Davis

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

December 6, 2017

SHANE LEE DIXON, Petitioner,
v.
LORIE DAVIS, Director, 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 a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by petitioner, Shane Lee Dixon, a state prisoner, against Lorie Davis, director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent. After having considered the pleadings and relief sought by Petitioner, the Court has concluded that the petition should be dismissed as time barred.

         I. Factual and Procedural History

         The state-court records reflect that in March 2014 Petitioner was indicted in Tarrant County, Texas, Case No. 1352104D, for the murder of Signe Edwards. (SHCR-01 Main Writ 67-68, doc. 12-2.) The indictment also included a deadly-weapon allegation and a habitual-offender notice. (Id.) On August 11, 2014, pursuant to a plea agreement, Petitioner pleaded guilty to the offense and true to the habitual-offender notice, and the trial court assessed his punishment at thirty years' imprisonment. (Id. at 69-76.) Petitioner did not appeal his conviction or sentence. (Pet. 3, doc. 3.) On November 10, 2015, [1] Petitioner filed a postconviction state habeas-corpus application challenging his conviction, which was denied by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals without written order on the findings of the trial court. (SHCR-01 Main Writ 26 & Action Taken, docs. 12-1 & 2.) On April 17, 2017, [2] Petitioner filed this federal habeas petition challenging his state-court conviction. (Pet. 10, doc. 3.)

         II. Issues

         In four grounds for relief, Petitioner claims that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel (grounds one through three) and that the trial court's judgment is a “false document” because “no weapon was submitted as evidence” (ground four). He seeks a remand to the trial court for a new trial. (Id. at 6-7.)

         III. Statute of Limitations

         Respondent alleges that the petition is untimely under the federal statute of limitations. (Resp't's Preliminary Answer 4-7, doc. 13.) Title 28, United States Code, § 2244(d) imposes a one-year statute of limitations on federal petitions for writs of habeas corpus filed by state prisoners. 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 prevented from filing by such State action;
(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if that right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or
(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.
(2) The time during which a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending shall not be counted toward any ...

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.