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.

Wiley v. Davis

United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division

April 3, 2018

CHRISTOPHER WILEY, Petitioner,
v.
LORIE DAVIS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION, Respondent.

          AMENDED [1] MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION GRANTING RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

          FRANCES H. STACY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDJSE.

         Pending in this proceeding brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment (Document No. 10), in which Respondent argues that Petitioner's Federal Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus is time-barred. Petitioner has not, as of this date, filed a response to the Motion for Summary Judgment.

         Having considered Respondent's motion, the absence of a response, the claims raised by Petitioner in his § 2254 Application (Document No. 1), the state court records, and the applicable law, the Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS, for the reasons set forth below, that Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment (Document No. 10) be GRANTED and that Petitioner's § 2254 Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Document No. 1) be DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, as time-barred.

         I. Introduction and Procedural History

         Christopher Wiley ("Wiley") is currently incarcerated in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division ("TDCJ-CID"), as a result of a 2010 capital murder conviction in the 248th District Court of Harris County, Texas, Cause No. 1177903, for which he was sentenced to life imprisonment. Wiley was found guilty by a jury of the murder offense on October 5, 2010, and he was sentenced by the trial court to life imprisonment. Texas' First Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction on June 16, 2011, and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals refused his petition for discretionary review on October 5, 2011. Wiley did not file a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court and, as a consequence, his conviction became final on or about January 3, 2012, when the time expired for him to file a petition for writ of certiorari.

         Wiley filed three state applications for writ of habeas corpus challenging the 2010 murder conviction, the first on April 3, 2014, the second on February 4, 2015, and the third on March 17, 2015. The first two applications were dismissed on procedural grounds on June 25, 2014, and February 11, 2015, respectively. The third application was denied on March 16, 2016, on the findings of the state trial court without a hearing. This § 2254 proceeding, filed by Wiley on or about July 22, 2017, the date he signed it, followed.[2]

         II. Claims

         Wiley raises four ineffective assistance of counsel claims in his § 2254 application, alleging that:

1. his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to Dr. Black's determination that he was competent to stand trial;
2. his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise an insanity defense;
3. his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to offer exculpatory affidavit evidence at trial; and
4. his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to provide him with a copy of the transcript from his co-defendant's trial.

         Respondent argues in the Motion for Summary Judgment that this § 2254 proceeding, and all the claims Wiley raises herein, are time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). While Wiley did assert in his § 2254 application that he "has a long history of learning disabilities such as [] not being able to read or write, " that he has "attended special education courses since he was a child, " and that his "slow learning disability is why it took over a year to file his 2254 habeas corpus writ" (Document No. 1 at 13), he has not filed a response to Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment.

         Wiley did not file a response to Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment, but did file a response to the Memorandum and Recommendation filed in this case on January 25, 2018. In two filings (Document Nos. 19 & 20), Wiley maintains that his IQ is very low (a 69 or 70), and that there is insufficient evidence that he committed the offense. As set forth below, the insufficient evidence claim was addressed by the Texas courts in Wiley's direct appeal. As for Wiley's assertion that his IQ is 69 or 70, he has submitted no evidence to support that assertion, and the "IQ: 000" reference on a disciplinary hearing form (Document No. 19 at 2) does not constitute evidence of Wiley's IQ.

         III. Discussio ...


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.