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.

Ford v. Davis

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Fort Worth Division

June 15, 2018

JAMIE FORD, Petitioner,
v.
LORIE DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          JOHN McBRYDE JUDGE

         This is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U, SC § 2254 filed by petitioner, Jamie Ford, a state prisoner incarcerated in the Correctional Institutions Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), against Lorie Davis, director of TDCJ, respondent. After having considered the pleadings, state court records, and relief sought by petitioner, the court has concluded that the petition should be denied.

         I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         Petitioner was charged in Parker County, Texas, Case No. CR12-0559, with continuous sexual abuse of R.F., a child younger than 14 years of age. (Clerk's R. 4, doc. 12-20.) Following a jury trial, the jury found him guilty and assessed his punishment at 37 years' imprisonment. (Id. at 5.) Petitioner appealed his conviction, but the Second District Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed the trial court's judgment and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals refused his petition for discretionary review. (Docket Sheet 1-2, doc. 12-5.) Petitioner also filed a state habeas-corpus application challenging his conviction, which was denied by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals without written order. (SHR "Action Taken, doc. 12-1.[1]) This federal petition followed.

         The state appellate court summarized the facts of the case as follows:

[R.F.] told her older friend a "secret, " alleging that her biological father, [petitioner], would say he was cleaning her or checking her for "bumps and bruises, " but [R.F.J, rather than describing what would be considered appropriate adult touching, went on to describe what appeared to be sexual acts. [R.F.] also told her friend not to tell anyone because she feared growing up without a dad, but the friend told her own parents, who went across the street and told [R.F.]'s mother. When Mother asked [R.F.] about what she had told her friend, [R.F.] told Mother and the friend's parents that [petitioner] had been sexually assaulting her for years. Later, the State indicted [petitioner] for the continuous sexual abuse of a child.
At trial, [R.F.], ten years old at the time, testified that throughout her first through third grades in elementary school, [petitioner] would have her undress in his bedroom and lay on the bed. Sometimes he would cover her face and touch her sexual organ with his hand. Other alleged acts included numerous incidents of fondling and digital penetration and at least one allegation of penetration of her mouth with his penis.
One of the Fords' neighbors testified that he was reluctant to believe allegations made against [petitioner] until he witnessed [R.F.]'s outcry and asked [R.F.] if her dad was touching her. He then believed her. . . .
The State also introduced the testimony of Rebecca Sullivan, the sexual assault nurse examiner who had performed a sexual assault exam on [R.F.] shortly after [R.F.]'s outcry. Sullivan said that she performed a detailed sexual history interview and exam of [R.F]. .

(Mem. Op. 2-4, doc. 12-6.)

         II. ISSUES

         Petitioner's claims for relief are not clearly delineated, however they fall within the following general categories: (A) violations of the rights that exist under 5th and 14th Amendments; violations of the rights that exist under the Sixth Amendment; and actual innocence. (Pet. 6-7, doc. 1.)

         III. RULE 5 STATEMENT

         Respondent believes that the petition is neither successive nor barred by the statute of limitations but that one or more of petitioner's claims are unexhausted and/or not cognizable ...


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.