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.

Henderson v. Davis

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

April 26, 2018

RODERICK NIKITA HENDERSON, TDCJ #1071240, Petitioner,
v.
LORIE DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          SIM LAKE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         State inmate Roderick Nikita Henderson (TDCJ #1071240) has filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person in State Custody ("Petition") (Docket Entry No. 1), challenging a state court conviction that was entered against him in 2001. After reviewing the pleadings in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, the court will dismiss this case for the reasons explained below.

         I. Background

         On November 8, 2001, Henderson was convicted of sexual assault of a child in Harris County Cause Number 855649.[1]A jury in the 174th District Court of Harris County, Texas, sentenced Henderson to serve 50 years in prison in that case.[2] The conviction was summarily affirmed on direct appeal in an unpublished opinion. See Henderson v. State, No. 01-01-01159-CR, 2002 WL 31721751 (Tex. App. - Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 5, 2002). Because Henderson did not appeal further by filing a petition for discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, his conviction became final thirty days later on January 4, 2003.

         On April 4, 2018, Henderson executed the pending Petition, seeking federal habeas corpus relief from his sexual assault conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.[3] Henderson contends that he is entitled to relief for the following reasons: (1) he was denied procedural due process because his attorney failed to consult with him about the case; (2) his attorney behaved unprofessionally by getting "in the Petitioner['s] face" during a court setting; and (3) his attorney did not challenge the credibility of the accuser or obtain a DNA test that might have proven Henderson's innocence.[4]

         II. Discussion

         The Petition must be dismissed because it is plainly barred by the governing one-year statute of limitations on federal habeas corpus review. According to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (the "AEDPA"), Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996), all federal habeas corpus petitions filed after April 24, 1996, 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 limitation 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.

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). Because the pending Petition was filed well after April 24, 1996, the one-year limitations period clearly applies. See Flanagan v. Johnson, 154 F.3d 196, 198 (5th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted).

         To the extent that Henderson challenges a state court judgment of conviction, the limitations period began to run pursuant to § 2244(d) (1) (A) on January 4, 2003, when his conviction became final upon the expiration of his time to pursue direct review. SeeGonzalez v. Thaler, 132 S.Ct. 641, 644, 647 (2012) (noting that where Supreme Court review is not sought a conviction becomes final "when the time for seeking further direct review in the state court expires"). That date triggered the statute of limitations, which expired one year later on January 4, 2004. Henderson's pending Petition, which was not ...


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.