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.

Stewart v. Davis

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division

January 22, 2018

THOMAS G. STEWART (TDCJ No. 571499), Petitioner,
v.
LORIE DAVIS, Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent.

          FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          DAVID L. HORAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Petitioner Thomas Stewart, a Texas inmate, has filed a pro se application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This resulting action has been referred to the undersigned United States magistrate judge for pretrial management under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and a standing order of reference from Senior U.S. District Judge Sam R. Cummings.

         Respondent Lorie Davis moves to dismiss the application as barred by the statute of limitations. See Dkt. Nos. 17 & 18. And Stewart has filed a court-ordered response to the motion. See Dkt. No. 22.

         The undersigned enters these findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation that, for the reasons explained below, the Court should grant the motion to dismiss and dismiss Stewart's habeas petition as time-barred.

         Applicable Background

         Stewart's habeas petition collaterally attacks his July 10, 2014 conviction for possession of a controlled substance, which resulted in a sentence of three years of imprisonment. See State v. Stewart, No. 39171CR (40th Jud. Dist. Ct., Ellis Cty., Tex.) [Dkt. No. 18-3]. Stewart's direct appeal was dismissed based on his waiver of his right to appeal. See Stewart v. State, No. 10-14-00214-CR, 2014 WL 3800374 (Tex. App. - Waco July 31, 2014). And the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (“CCA”) refused his petition for discretionary review (“PDR”). See Stewart v. State, PD-1288-14 (Tex. Crim. App. Nov. 19, 2014) [Dkt. Nos. 18-7 & 18-8].

         The CCA also denied his state habeas application without written order on findings of the trial court without hearing. See Ex parte Stewart, WR-26, 727-05 (Tex. Crim. App. Nov. 18, 2015) [Dkt. No. 18-9]. That application [Dkt. No. 18-11 at 61-78] was filed no sooner than June 24, 2015, the date on which Stewart signed it, see Id. at 77, 78.

         And Stewart filed his federal habeas action in this Court no sooner than November 10, 2016, the date on which he signed the Section 2254 petition. See Dkt. No. 2 at 22.

         Legal Standards

         The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) establishes a one-year statute of limitations for federal habeas proceedings brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996). The limitations period runs 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 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 ...

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.