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.

Thornton v. Wainwright

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division

February 28, 2019

SHEDRICK THORNTON, ID # 02111277, Petitioner,
v.
DALE WAINWRIGHT, Respondent.

          FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

          IRMA CARRILLO RAMIREZ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         By Special Order 3-251, this habeas case has been automatically referred for findings, conclusions, and recommendation. Based on the relevant filings and applicable law, the petition should be DENIED as barred by the statute of limitations.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Shedrick Thornton (Petitioner), an inmate currently incarcerated in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Correctional Institutions Division (TDCJ-CID), filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his convictions for stalking. The respondent is Dale Wainwright (Respondent).

         On January 12, 2017, Petitioner pleaded guilty to stalking in Cause No. F14-76803 in Criminal District Court No. 1 of Dallas County, Texas, and was sentenced to 6 years' imprisonment. (See doc. 3 at 2-3)[1]; see www.dallascounty.org (search for petitioner). On February 6, 2017, Petitioner also pleaded guilty to stalking in Cause No. F16-75253 in Criminal District Court No. 1 of Dallas County, Texas, and was sentenced to 6 years' imprisonment. (See doc. 3 at 2-3, 7); see www.dallascounty.org (search for petitioner). He did not appeal his convictions. (See doc. 3 at 3); see www.txcourts.gov (search for petitioner). He filed state habeas applications that were signed on June 26, 2018, and received in the state district court on June 29, 2018. They were denied on December 5, 2018. See Ex parte Thornton, WR-89, 175-01, WR-89-175-02 (Tex. Crim. App. Dec. 5, 2018).

         Petitioner's federal habeas petition, signed on December 12, 2018, and received on December 17, 2018, claims that (1) he received ineffective assistance of counsel, (2) his pleas were involuntary and based on fraud, (3) the prosecutor withheld from defense counsel a falsified affidavit that was used to obtain a protective order against him, (4) the prosecutor knowingly used false testimony, apparently to obtain the protective order. (See doc. 3 at 6-7, 11.)

         II. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

         Congress enacted the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), Pub. L. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1217, on April 24, 1996. Title I of the Act applies to all federal petitions for habeas corpus filed on or after its effective date. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 326 (1997). Because Petitioner filed his petition after its effective date, the Act applies to it. Title I of the Act substantially changed the way federal courts handle habeas corpus actions. One of the major changes is a one-year statute of limitations. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).

         A. Calculation of One-Year Period

         The one-year period is calculated from the latest of either:

(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 ...

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.