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.

Acevedo v. Davis

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Fort Worth Division

December 11, 2019

JANICE ACEVEDO, Petitioner,
v.
LORIE DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          REED O'CONNOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Before the Court is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by Petitioner, Janice Acevedo, a former state prisoner who was confined in the Correctional Institutions Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) when the petition was filed, against Lorie Davis, director of that division, Respondent. After considering the pleadings and relief sought by Petitioner, the Court has concluded that the petition should be denied.

         I. BACKGROUND

         On October 20, 2017, in the 432nd Judicial District Court, Tarrant County, Texas, No. 1505172D, Petitioner pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea bargain agreement to one count of illegal voting, a second-degree felony, and was sentenced to four years' confinement in TDCJ, the sentence to run concurrently with her four-year sentence in No. 1453889D for felony DWI with a deadly weapon. SHR-01[1] 5, ECF No. 20-6. Petitioner did not directly appeal the judgment of conviction but filed two relevant state habeas-corpus applications challenging the conviction and sentence. The first was denied by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals without written order on the findings of the trial court and the second was dismissed for failure to comply with the state's form requirements. Id. at 19-26; SHR-03 at 19-39; Actions Taken, ECF Nos. 20-1 & 20-15. By way of this petition, Petitioner challenges only her conviction for illegal voting in No. 1505172D. Pet'r's Resp. to Supp. Order to Show Cause 1, ECF No. 16.

         II. ISSUES

         Petitioner raises four grounds for relief, which fall within the following general categories:

(1) ineffective assistance of counsel (2) “due process of law-miscarriage of justice”;
(3) cruel and unusual punishment; and
(4) illegal search and seizure.

Pet. 6-7, ECF No. 3.

         III. RULE 5 STATEMENT

         Petitioner has accomplished exhaustion of her claims in state court, and Respondent does not assert that the petition is untimely or subject to the successive-petition bar.

         IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         A § 2254 habeas petition is governed by the heightened standard of review provided for by the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Under the Act, a writ of habeas corpus should be granted only if a state court arrives at a decision that is contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the United States Supreme Court or that is based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the record before the state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)-(2); Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 100-01 (2011). Additionally, the statute requires that federal courts give great deference to a state court's factual findings. Hill v. Johnson, 210 F.3d 481, 485 (5th Cir. 2000). Section 2254(e)(1) provides that a determination of a factual issue made by a state court shall be presumed to be correct. It is the petitioner's burden to rebut the presumption of correctness through clear and convincing evidence. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). Finally, when the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the state's highest criminal court, denies relief on a state habeas-corpus application without written order, typically it is an adjudication on the merits, which is likewise entitled to this presumption. Richter, 562 U.S. at 100; Ex parte Torres, 943 S.W.2d 469, 472 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). In such a situation, a federal court “should ‘look through' the unexplained decision to the last related state-court decision providing” particular reasons, both legal and factual, “presume that the unexplained decision adopted the same reasoning, ” and give appropriate deference to that decision. Wilson v. Sellers, ___ U.S. ___, 138 S.Ct. 1188, 1191-92 (2018).

         V. DISCUSSION

         A. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

         Under her first ground, Petitioner claims that she received ineffective assistance of trial counsel, David ...


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.