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.

Batiste v. Davies

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

May 20, 2019

ANDRE RESHARD BATISTE, Petitioner,
v.
LORIE DAVIES, Director, TDCJ-CID, Respondent.

          FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          REBECCA RUTHERFORD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Petitioner Andre Batiste, a Texas prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. For the following reasons, the petition should be denied.

         I.

         In 2000, Petitioner was convicted of aggravated robbery in four separate cases and sentenced to a total of twenty-eight years in prison. State of Texas v. Andre Reshard Batiste, Nos. F-9947066-RH, F-9947067-RH, F-9947068-RH, and F-9947069-RH (Crim. Dist. Ct. No. 1, Dallas County, Tex., June 14, 2000). Seven years later, the Parole Board (“Board”) denied Petitioner release on parole. Petitioner filed a state habeas petition challenging the Board's decision to deny him parole and the Board's decision to deny him placement in a rehabilitation program. Ex parte Batiste, No. 87, 948-01. On February 7, 2018, the Court of Criminal Appeals denied the state habeas petition without written order. Petitioner then filed his § 2254 petition, in which he argues:

1. Respondent and the Board violated his right to due process by failing to follow the mandatory language in §§ 508.152 and 500.004 of the Texas Government Code, which made him ineligible for parole;
2. Respondent and the Board violated mandatory TDCJ policy by failing to place him in the FI-R vote rehabilitation program;
3. Respondent and the Board violated his constitutional rights when they failed to enroll him in the FI-R vote rehabilitation program.

         II.

         1. Standard of review

         The pertinent terms of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (the AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. § 2254 provide:

(d) An application for writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim -
(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or
(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in a State court proceeding.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Under the “contrary to” clause, a federal habeas court may grant the writ of habeas corpus if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by the United States Supreme Court on a question of law or if the state court decides a case differently from the United States Supreme Court on a set of materially indistinguishable facts. Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 380-84 (2000). Under the “unreasonable application” clause, a federal court may grant a writ of habeas corpus if the state court identifies the correct governing legal ...


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.