United States District Court, W.D. Texas, Austin Division
HONORABLE LEE YEAKEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
LANE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Magistrate Judge submits this Report and Recommendation to
the District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b) and
Rule 1(e) of Appendix C of the Local Court Rules of the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Texas, Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to United
States Magistrate Judges.
the Court is Petitioner's Application for Habeas Corpus
Relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Document 1). Petitioner,
proceeding pro se, has paid the filing fee for this case. For
the reasons set forth below, the undersigned finds that
Petitioner's application for writ of habeas corpus should
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner's Criminal History
to Petitioner, the Director has custody of him pursuant to a
judgment and sentence of the 331st Judicial District Court of
Travis County, Texas. Petitioner was convicted of aggravated
robbery with a deadly weapon, aggravated assault with a
deadly weapon and aggravated assault of a public servant and
was sentenced to life in prison on October 20, 2014.
Petitioner's convictions were affirmed on December 3,
2015. Fruge v. State, Nos. 03-14-00722-CR,
03-14-00723-CR, and 03-14-00724-CR, 2015 WL 7969209 (Tex.
App. - Austin 2015, pet. ref'd.). The Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals refused Petitioner's petition for
discretionary review on May 4, 2016. Fruge v. State,
Nos. PD-0043-16, PD-0044-16, PD-0045-16.
also challenged his conviction in three state applications
for habeas corpus relief filed on July 16, 2016. The Texas
Court of Criminal Appeals denied them without written order
on the findings of the trial court without a hearing on
September 14, 2016. Ex parte Fruge, Appl. Nos. 85,
629-01, -02, -03.
Petitioner's Grounds for Relief
raises the following grounds for relief:
1. The trial court denied Petitioner a fair and impartial
jury, because it granted the State's challenge for cause
with regard to venire member number 12; and
2. The trial court erred in allowing the State to impeach a
witness with Petitioner's prior conviction and bad act.
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS