United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Fort Worth Division
OPINION AND ORDER
O'CONNOR, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by petitioner, Ronald Dean
Peterson, 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 denied.
2011Petitioner was indicted in Tarrant County, Texas, Case
No. 1259837D, on one count of evading arrest or detention
with a deadly weapon, a motor vehicle. Adm. R., Clerk's
R. 5, ECF No. 15-5. On April 9, 2013, Petitioner entered an
open plea of guilty to the offense and a plea of true to the
deadly-weapon notice to a jury, and the jury assessed his
punishment at ten years' confinement. Id. at 56.
Petitioner appealed, but the appellate court affirmed the
trial court's judgment and the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals refused Petitioner's petition for discretionary
review. Id., Docket Sheet 1-2, ECF No. 15-3.
Petitioner also sought postconviction state habeas relief by
filing five state habeas-corpus applications challenging his
conviction. The first was denied by the Texas Court of
Appeals without written order; the second was denied without
written order on the findings of the trial court; and the
last three were dismissed as subsequent petitions under
article 11.07, § 4 of the Texas Code of Criminal
Procedure. Id., SH03, SH05, SH07, SH09 & SH11,
ECF Nos. 15-21, 15-23, 15-25, 15-27 & 15-29.
raises three grounds for habeas relief:
1. His plea was involuntary because he was misinformed by the
trial judge of the parole-eligibility consequences of a
2. His trial counsel was ineffective by-
(a) failing to understand and convey the parole-eligibility
consequences of a deadly-weapon finding;
(b) failing to “provide the simple motions and
reasonable degree of competence in pre-trail [sic]
(c) failing to “properly and adequately develop any
sentencing trial strategy.”
3. He was denied due process because his trial counsel was
given less than 24 hours to prepare for the punishment phase
of his trial.
Pet. 6-7, ECF No. 3; Pet'r's Mem. 3, ECF No.