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.

Anderson v. Davis

United States District Court, W.D. Texas, San Antonio Division

December 16, 2019

DOMINIC ANDERSON, TDCJ No. 02028320, Petitioner,
v.
LORIE DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          ORLANDO L. GARCIA CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Before the Court are pro se Petitioner Dominic Anderson's Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (ECF No. 16) and Respondent Lorie Davis's Answer (ECF No. 17). Having reviewed the record and pleadings submitted by both parties, the Court concludes Petitioner is not entitled to relief under the standards prescribed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Petitioner is also denied a certificate of appealability.

         I. Background

         The facts of Petitioner's case were accurately summarized by the Texas Fourth Court of Appeals on direct appeal:

The complainant, A.T., and [Petitioner] lived together. According to A.T., after [Petitioner] saw a message A.T. received from another man, [Petitioner] followed her into a bathroom stall at a restaurant and hit her. A.T. also stated [Petitioner] hit her in the face and pinched her breasts in the car after leaving the restaurant, and, on the drive home after stopping at a friend's house, [Petitioner] punched A.T. in her eye four times. After returning home, A.T. further testified [Petitioner] repeatedly pinched her and pulled her hair and also forced her to engage in anal sex. The following day, A.T. told her sister what had occurred. The police were called, and [Petitioner] was arrested.
A.T. underwent a sexual assault exam, and the sexual assault nurse examiner testified the bruises on A.T.'s breasts were severe and were inflicted using a lot of force. The nurse examiner also testified A.T. had a tear in her anus caused by a great deal of physical force or blunt force trauma. Finally, the nurse examiner testified A.T.'s injuries were too severe to have been caused by "rough sex." Pictures of A.T.'s injuries were introduced into evidence.
[Petitioner] testified in his defense, stating all of his sexual intercourse with A.T. was consensual and the bruises were hickeys. [Petitioner] further testified A.T. enjoyed deviant or rough sex, and she consented to the actions that caused the marks shown in the pictures. [Petitioner] admitted he was convicted in 2006 for assault family violence but also denied assaulting the victim in that case.
After hearing the evidence, the jury found [Petitioner] guilty of sexual assault and assault family violence-enhanced. [Petitioner] was sentenced to fifteen years' imprisonment for the sexual assault and ten years' imprisonment for the assault family violence-enhanced offense.

Anderson v. State, No. 04-15-00573-CR, 2016 WL 3773600, at *1 (Tex. App.-San Antonio, July 13, 2016, pet. ref d); (ECF No. 18-15 at 2).

         Petitioner appealed his convictions and sentences, arguing the trial court erred by (1) denying his request for a severance; (2) refusing to allow him to cross-examine the complainant regarding her probationary status; and (3) denying his request for a jury instruction. (ECF No. 18-10). The Fourth Court of Appeals rejected Petitioner's arguments and affirmed his convictions and sentences in an unpublished opinion dated July 13, 2016. Anderson, 2016 WL 3773600; (ECF No. 18-15). The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals then refused his petition for discretionary review. Anderson v. State, No. 0951-16 (Tex. Crim. App. Jan. 11, 2017).

         On September 19, 2017, Petitioner filed a state habeas corpus application challenging the constitutionality of his state court convictions and sentences. Ex parte Anderson, No. 87, 567-01 (Tex. Crim. App.) (ECF No. 18-25 at 14). In the application, Petitioner raised the same allegations he raised on direct appeal and also alleged that his conviction for sexual assault violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied Petitioner's state application without written order on February 14, 2018. (ECF No. 18-20).

         Petitioner initiated the instant proceedings on July 3, 2018, when he placed his initial form petition for federal habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the prison mailing system. (ECF No. 1 at 10). In his subsequent amended petition filed November 16, 2018, Petitioner raises the same four allegations that were rejected in state court: (1) the trial court erred by denying his request for a severance; (2) the trial court erred by refusing to allow him to cross-examine the complainant regarding her probationary status; (3) the trial court erred by denying his request for a jury instruction; and (4) his conviction for sexual assault violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. (ECF No. 16). In her answer, Respondent relies on the state court's adjudication of these allegations and argues federal habeas relief is precluded under the AEDPA's deferential standard. (ECF No. 17).

         II. Standard of Review

         Petitioner's federal habeas petition is governed by the heightened standard of review provided by the AEDPA. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254. Under § 2254(d), a petitioner may not obtain federal habeas corpus relief on any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in state court proceedings unless the adjudication of that claim either: (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 the state court proceeding. Brown v. Payton, 544 U.S. 133, 141 (2005). This intentionally difficult standard stops just ...


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.