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.

Grizzle v. Davis

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

July 1, 2019

RONALD GENE GRIZZLE, JR., ID # 1935380, Petitioner,
v.
LORIE DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, 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

         Ronald Gene Grizzle, Jr. (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. The respondent is Lorie Davis, Director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), Correctional Institutions Division (Respondent).

         On June 13, 2014, in Cause No. F48507 in the 249th Judicial District Court of Johnson County, Texas, Petitioner was convicted by a jury and sentenced to 60 years' imprisonment for aggravated sexual assault of a child, 10 years' imprisonment for indecency with a child by contact (two counts), and 10 years' probation for indecency with a child by exposure (two counts). (See doc. 2 at 1; doc. 3 at 7)[1]. The judgments were affirmed on appeal. (See doc. 2 at 3); see Grizzle v. State, No. 10-14-00204-CR, 2015 WL 222349 (Tex. App. - Waco, Jan. 15, 2015). His petition for discretionary review was refused. (See doc. 2 at 3); see Grizzle v. State, No. PD-0136-15 (Tex. Crim. App. June 3, 2015). He filed a state habeas application that was signed on April 10, 2018, and received in the state district court on April 30, 2018. (See doc. 3 at 3-4). On September 19, 2018, it was denied as to the counts for which he was imprisoned, and dismissed as to the counts for which he was on probation. (See doc. 2 at 3-4); see Ex parte Grizzle, No. WR-88, 545-01, 2018 WL 4472293 (Tex. Crim. App. Sept. 19, 2018).

         Petitioner's federal habeas petition, signed on June 14, 2019, and received on June 25, 2019, claims that counsel was ineffective at the guilt and sentencing phases and on appeal, and that he was denied due process at the guilt and sentencing phases. (See doc. 3 at 6-8; doc. 3.)

         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.