United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
HARRIS TOLIVER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Special Order 3, this case was
referred to the United States magistrate judge for case
management, including a recommended disposition of the
petition for writ of habeas corpus brought under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254. Upon review, the habeas corpus petition should
24, 2015, Petitioner Cody Allen Stotler pleaded guilty to
possession of a controlled substance, 1-4 grams, and was
sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment, probated for five
years. Doc. 19-2 at 21, 28. Stotler did not file a direct
appeal. Doc. 2 at 3. On June 6, 2017, the trial court entered
a judgment revoking Stotler's probation and sentencing
him to ten years' imprisonment. Doc. 19-2 at 28. Stotler
did not appeal his probation revocation. Doc. 2 at 3. On
February 2, 2018, Stotler filed an application for state writ
of habeas corpus. Doc. 19-2 at 32-48. On April 4, 2018, the
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (TCCA) denied state habeas
relief without written order. Ex Parte Stotler, No.
WR-88, 141-01, Doc. 19-1.
filed the Section 2254 petition in this case on April 13,
2018, alleging that (1) his trial counsel provided
ineffective assistance, (2) his sentence constitutes cruel
and unusual punishment, (3) his due process rights were
violated at the revocation hearing and when he was
transferred between various prison institutions, and (4) the
state court judge hindered his appeal rights. Doc. 2. Stotler
additionally alleged various civil rights violations.
29, 2018, the Court issued an Order severing Petitioner's
civil rights claims from this habeas action. Doc. 8.
The Court then ordered the Government to respond to
Stotler's remaining claims. Doc. 9. The Government filed
a response, arguing that the claims in Stotler's petition
“are either untimely, unexhausted and procedurally
barred, not cognizable on federal habeas review, or without
merit.” Doc. 20. Stotler did not file a reply.
Court understands Stotler to assert:
1. Trial counsel was ineffective for:
a. Failing to inform Stotler that she believed that the
charges against him were the result of an illegal search and
b. Coercing Stotler into pleading guilty by advising him to
accept the state's plea offer;
2. His sentence of ten years imprisonment constitutes cruel
and unusual punishment;
3. His due process rights were violated when the State failed
to include cause number DCF201600052 in its notice of intent
to introduce extraneous evidence at Stotler's revocation
4. The state court hindered his appellate rights by:
(a) not asking Stotler if he wished to appeal, and
(b) Stotler not knowingly and voluntarily waiving his right
to an appellate attorney;
5. He was illegally transferred to various detention
facilities on or around:
a. September 19, 2016,
b. April 27, 2017,
c. June 26, 2017; ...