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.

Houston v. Davis

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

December 11, 2017

CHARLES OLETHA HOUSTON
v.
LORIE DAVIS

          ORDER

          SAM SPARKS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Before the Court are Petitioner Charles Oletha Houston'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 5). Petitioner, proceeding pro se, has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 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 331 st Judicial District Court of Travis County, Texas. After entering a guilty plea, Petitioner was convicted of aggravated sexual assault. The court sentenced Petitioner to 25 years in prison. Petitioner admits he did not appeal his conviction. He did, however, challenge his conviction in a state application for habeas corpus relief. Petitioner indicates he filed his state application on April 10, 2017. The Texas Court of Criminals appeals denied the application on June 14, 2017.

         B. Petitioner's Grounds for Relief

         Petitioner asserts he was denied an examining trial and he received ineffective assistance of counsel.

         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.