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.

Carpenter v. Davis

United States District Court, S.D. Texas

March 26, 2019

William Stephen Carpenter, Petitioner,
v.
Lorie Davis, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION

          Peter Bray United States Magistrate Judge.

         William Stephen Carpenter ha; filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his conviction for continuous family violence. (D.E. 1.) He also filed a Motion for Leave to Utilize Discovery (D.E. 11) and an Amended Motion for Leave to Utilize Discovery. (D.E. 12.) The court recommends that the petition be dismissed with prejudice as time-barred. The motion for discovery is denied.

         1. Background

         On June 6, 2014, Carpenter pleaded guilty in the 435th Judicial District Court for Montgomery County, Texas, to continuous family violence and was placed on deferred adjudication for five years. (D.E. 9-15 at 74-77.) The charges were based on two instances when Carpenter committed acts of violence against his grandparents. (D.E. 9-15 at 73.) On December 5, 2014, the State filed a mction to adjudicate guilt alleging that Carpenter violated the conditions of his deferred adjudication. (D.E. 9-15 at 78-79.) The State filed an amended motion to adjudicate guilt on June 24, 2015. (D.E. 9-15 at 80-81.) On October 22, 2015, Carpenter pleaded true to technical violations. (D.E. 9-15 at 85.) On the same day, the district court sentenced him to ten years confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and a $1, 000 fine. (D.E. 9-15 at 85.)

         The court of appeals affirmed the district court's judgment. Carpenter v. State, No. 12-17-00015-CR (Tex. App.-Tyler Aug. 9, 2017). Carpenter did not file a petition for discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. He filed three state court habeas applications. After the first application, filed on April 28, 2016, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals permitted him to file an out-of-time appeal of the judgment revoking his probation. He filed the second state court habeas application on November 13, 2017, which the TCCA dismissed on March 28, 2018, for non-compliance with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. He filed the third application on April 2, 2018. (D.E. 9-15 at 6.) The TCCA denied the application without written order on the findings of the trial court without a hearing on June 27, 2018. (D.E. 9-14 at 1.)

         Carpenter filed this federal petition for writ of habeas corpus on July 25, 2018. Carpenter identifies his October 22, 2015, judgment adjudicating guilt as the conviction he is challenging, but his petition concerns only events leading up to his guilty plea on June 6, 2014. He raises three grounds for relief: (1) thai his guilty plea was involuntary due to ineffective assistance of counsel; (2) that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his lawyer failed to object to the district court's jurisdiction; and (3) that he was deprived of Due Process under the Fourteenth Amendment because the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. (D.E. 1 at 6-9.)

         2. Statute of limitations

         AEDPA sets a one-year limitations period for federal habeas petitions. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). The statute provides:

(d)(i) A l-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 udgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review;
(B) the date on which tie 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.