United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Fort Worth Division
VILRAM S. CHAUHAN, a.k.a. VIKRAM S. CHAUHAN, Petitioner,
DALLAS JONES, Warden, FCC-Beaumont-Medium, and KEN PAXTON, Attorney General, the State of Texas, Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
McBryde United States District Judge
a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 filed by petitioner, Vilram S. Chauhan, a.k.a.
Vikram S, Chauhan, a former federal prisoner now incarcerated
in the Correctional Institutions Division of the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), against Dallas Jones,
warden of FCC-Beaumont-Medium, and Ken Paxton, Attorney
General of the State of Texas, respondents. After having
considered the pleadings, state court records, and relief
sought by petitioner, the court has concluded that the
petition should be denied.
is serving two concurrent 20-year sentences for his
convictions in Tarrant County, Texas, Case Nos. 1248464D and
1248466D, for aggravated robbery. The state appellate court
set forth the relevant background facts of the case as
On September 8, 2011, [petitioner] was indicted on two counts
of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon committed on July
7, 2011. On November 14, 2011, while out on bond,
[petitioner] robbed a bank. He was convicted of the bank
robbery in federal district court and sentenced to sixty-six
months' confinement in federal prison.
On February 7, 2013, [petitioner] received notice that
Tarrant County had lodged a detainer on him for the two
aggravated robbery charges. Between July 1, 2013, and
December 27, 2013, [petitioner] filed five pro se motions
seeking dismissal of the charges. The State claimed that all
five motions were defective and inadequate to invoke the
IADA. On March 20, 2014, [petitioner] was transferred from
federal prison to the Tarrant County jail.
A jury trial was held on [petitioner]'s aggravated
robbery cases in June 2014. The jury found [petitioner]
guilty of both counts and assessed punishment at twenty
years' confinement on each count. The trial court
sentenced [petitioner] accordingly and ordered the sentences
to run concurrently. [Petitioner] filed a motion for new
trial arguing that he was tried in violation of the IADA. The
trial court denied the motion ....
(Mem. Op. 2, doc. 4.)
appealed the denial of his motion for new trial, but the
Second District Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed his
convictions and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals refused
his petitions for discretionary review, (Id. at 7;
Electronic Record, doc. 15-34.) Petitioner did not file a
postconviction application for habeas relief in the state
grounds, petitioner claims-
(1) the state trial court erred by not trying him within the
180-day speedy-trial provision of the Interstate Agreement of
Detainers Act (IADA); and
(2) his trial counsel was ineffective by failing to urge his
motions for dismissal of the state charges ...