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.

Wallace v. Davis

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

April 23, 2018

FREDDIE LEE WALLACE, Petitioner,
v.
LORIE DAVIS, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          KEITH P. ELLISON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Petitioner Freddie Lee Wallace, a state inmate proceeding pro se, filed this section 2254 habeas petition challenging his 2006 conviction and life sentence for aggravated sexual assault. Respondent Lorie Davis filed a motion for summary judgment based on expiration of limitations (Docket Entry No. 16), to which petitioner filed a response (Docket Entry No. 17).

         Having considered the motion for summary judgment, the response, the record, the summary judgment evidence, and the applicable law, the Court GRANTS summary judgment and DISMISSES this lawsuit as barred by limitations.

         I. BACKGROUND AND CLAIMS

         Petitioner was convicted of aggravated sexual assault in Brazos County, Texas and sentenced to life imprisonment in July 2006. The conviction was affirmed on appeal, and discretionary review was refused in February 2010. Wallace v. State, 2009 WL 2397319 (Tex. App. - Waco 2009, pet. ref d). Petitioner's governing applications for state habeas relief were denied in March and July 2012.

         The instant federal habeas petition was filed no earlier than October 10, 2017. Petitioner claims that his conviction is void and enforceable, and that he was compelled to testify against himself after pleading guilty. Respondent contends that this petition is untimely and barred by limitations. Petitioner counters that limitations does not bar habeas challenges to void criminal convictions.

         II. ANALYSIS

         This petition is governed by provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). Under AEDPA, federal habeas corpus petitions are subject to a one-year limitations period found in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), which provides as follows:

(d)(1) A 1-year period of limitations 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 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 exercise of due diligence.
(2) The time during which a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending shall not be counted toward ...

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.