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.

McClennon v. Davis

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

April 5, 2018

SELMA SAM McCLENNON
v.
LORIE DAVIS, Director, Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice-Correctional Institutions Division

          HONORABLE LEE YEAKEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          ANDREW W. AUSTIN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         The 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.

         Before the Court are Petitioner's Application for Habeas Corpus Relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Docket Entry “DE” 1); Respondent's Answer (DE 14); Respondent's Supplemental Answer (DE 16); and Petitioner's reply (DE 17). Petitioner, proceeding pro se, has paid the full filing fee for his case. For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned finds that Petitioner's application for writ of habeas corpus should be denied.

         STATEMENT OF THE CASE

         A. Petitioner's Criminal History

         According to Respondent, the Director has lawful and valid custody of Petitioner pursuant to a judgment and sentence of the 331st Judicial District Court of Travis County, Texas, in cause number 83, 519. In that case, Petitioner was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison on September 11, 1986. See DE #13-16 at 4. Petitioner does not challenge his holding conviction. Rather, Petitioner challenges the revocation of his parole.

         B. Grounds for Relief

         Although Petitioner's federal application for habeas corpus relief is not clear, he appears to argue:

1. His due process rights were violated in the parole revocation hearing;
2. He received ineffective assistance of counsel; and
3. His state habeas corpus proceedings were flawed.

         A review of the state court records submitted by Respondent shows Petitioner raised his first two claims in a state application for habeas corpus relief. See DE 13-16 at 13-37 and DE 13-17 1-3. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied Petitioner's state application without written order on June 28, 2017. Ex parte McClennon, Appl. No. 3, 877-08.

         DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

         A. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996

         The Supreme Court has summarized the basic principles that have grown out of the Court's many cases interpreting the 1996 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. See Harringtonv. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 97-100 (2011). The Court noted that the starting point for any federal ...


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.