Davidson v. Thaler, Director TDCJ-CID, No. 4:2009cv00213 - Document 20 (N.D. Tex. 2009)
Court Description: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS on case: Magistrate Judge Charles Bleil no longer assigned to case. Recommended that petition should be denied; Objections to F&R due by 10/14/2009 cy mailed to petitioner (Ordered by Magistrate Judge Charles Bleil on 9/23/09) (wrb)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Davidson v. Thaler, Director TDCJ-CID Doc. 20 U . S .D I S T R I C TC O T l R T N O R T H E R ND I S T R I C TO F T E X A S FILEI) IN THE T]NITED STATES DISTRICTCOU sEP m 23 F'ORTHE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FORT WORTH DIVISION K, U.S.DISTRICT COURT STANLEY SPENCERDAVIDSON, $ Petitioner, $ s v. RICK THALER, Director, TexasDepartmentof Criminal Justice, CorrectionalInstitutionsDivision, Respondent. $ $ Civil Action No. 4:09-CV-213-Y S S S S FINDINGS. CONCLUSIONS. AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATESMAGISTRATE JUDGE AND NOTICE AND ORDER This causeof actionwas referredto the United States Magistrate Judgepursuant the to provisions 28U.S.C.$ 636(b), implemented anorderofthe UnitedStates of as DistrictCourtfor by the NorthernDistrictof Texas. The Findings, Conclusionso Recommendation the United and of Magistrate States Judgeareasfollows: I. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS A. Narunn oFTHEC.lsn This is a petitionfor writ of habeas prisoner corpus a state by under28 U.S.C.S 2254. B. Pnnrrss ' PetitionerStanleySpencer Davidson,TDCJ # 1513147, in custodyof the Texas is Department CriminalJustice, of Institutions Correctional Division, in Iowa Park,Texas. Respondent Rick Thaler is the Director of the Texas Department Criminal Justice, of Institutions Division. Correctional C. Facru.cl AND PnocpounAl HrsroRy plea In May 2008Davidson entered negotiated of guilty to burglaryof a habitation was and a Dockets.Justia.com sentenced to26years' confinementin ParkerCounty,Texas. (0lState HabeasR. at 13) Davidson waived his right to appeal but filed a state application for writ of habeascorpus, challenging his conviction, which was denied by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals without written order. (1d. at cover) Davidson filed a secondstatehabeasapplication challenging his conviction, which was HabeasR. at cover) dismissedby the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals as successive.(O3State This federal petition for writ of habeascorpus followed. D. Issues Davidson claims (1) he is actually innocent of the offense, which is establishedby newly discoveredevidence,and (2) his trial counsel(a) withheld food and medical treatmentto coercehim into pleading guilty, (b) failed to f,rleany motions, conduct an independentinvestigation, or contact the witnesses, and (c) aidedand assisted prosecution.(Petitionat7;Pet'r Memorandumat 5) E. Ruln 5 SrlrnvrnNr him induced to claimandhis claimthatcounsel Thaleralleges Davidson's actualinnocence state second for raised thefirst time in Davidson's pleadguilty by withholdingfoodandmedication, review. (Resp't banedfrom federalhabeas and are habeas application, unexhausted procedurally Answerat 3-9) to all relief undet$ 2254arerequired exhaust claimsin Applicantsseeking habeas corpus Fisherv. Texas,169 relief. 28 U.S.C.5 2254(b)(I); federal collateral requesting state courtbefore of is whenthe substance the requirement satisfied F.3d 295,302(sthCir. 1999). The exhaustion to federalhabeas claim has been fairly presented the highestcourt of the state. O'Sullivan v. Fisher,l69F.3dat302;Carterv,Estelle,677F.2d427,443 Boerckel,526U.S.838,842-48(1999); to (5thCir. 1982). This requires that the statecourtbe givena fair opportunity passon the claim, which in turn requires that the applicant presenthis claims before the statecourts in a procedurally propermanneraccordingtotherulesofthestatecourts. Depuyv.Butler,937P.2d699,702(5'hCir. 1988). The Texas abuse-of-the-writ doctrine prohibits a successivehabeas petition, absent a showing of cause,if the applicanturgesgroundsthat could havebeen,but were not, raisedin his first petition. Ex parte Barber,879 S.W.2d889, 891 n.l (Tex. Crim. App. 199a). This doctrine habeas is an adequatestateprocedural bar for purposesof federal habeasreview. Cotton v. Coclcrell,343 F.3d746,755 (5'hCir.2003); Emeryv. Johnson,139 F.3d 191, 195 (5'hCir. 1997);Noblesv. Johnson, 127F .3d 409, 423 (5'hCir. 1997). evidencein that his actualinnocence Davidsonasserts claim is basedon newly discovered that Davidson was not involved in the burglary. However, the form of assertions his co-defendant by prior to pleading guilty Davidson would haveknown the factual basisfor his claim that he is actually Davidsonwould haveknown the innocentof the allegedcrime. Likewise, during the plea process, claim that counselcoercedhis guilty plea by withholding factual basis for his ineffective assistance food and medication. Absent causeand prejudice or a fundamental miscarriage of justice, such showing not having been made, the stateprocedural default bars the court's review of Davidson's U.S. 722,750(1991). claims(1) and2(a). Colemanv.Thompson,50l F. Drscussrox I. Legal Standardfor Granting Habeas Corpus Relief Under23U.S.C.52254(d),awritofhabeascorpusonbehalfofapersonincustodypursuant to the judgment of a statecourt shall not be grantedwith respectto any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in statecourt proceedingsunlesshe showsthat the prior adjudication: (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an uffeasonable application of clearly established federal law, or (2) resulted a decisiori wasbased anunreasonable in that on determination ofthe facts in light of theevidence presented thestate in court. 28 U.S.C.$ 2254(d).A decision contrary is to clearlyestablished federallaw ifthe statecourtarrivesat a conclusion opposite that reached to by the Supreme of Court of the United States a question law or if the statecourt decidesa case on facts. Williamsv. differentlythanthe Supreme Courthason a setof materiallyindistinguishable (2000); alsoHill v. Johnson,210 481,485(5'h Taylor,529 see F.3d Cir. 2000). U.S.362,405-06 federallaw if it A statecourt decisionwill be an unreasonable application clearlyestablished of it to correctlyidentifiestheapplicable but applies unreasonably thefactsof the case.Williams, rule 529U.S.at 407-08. to furtherrequires federalcourtsgive greatdeference a statecourt'sfactual The statute that issue of provides thatadetermination a factual findings,Hill,2l0 F.3dat 485. Section2254(e)(l) appliesto all findings, to madeby a statecourt shall be presumed be correct. This presumption (5'h Coclvell,274F.3d94l,948 Cir. 2001).Theapplicanthas express implied.SeeValdezv. and 28 evidence. U.S.C. by and of the theburden rebutting presumption correctness clear convincing of habeas reliefin a state denies Courtof CriminalAppeals Typically, whentheTexas S 225a@)Q). on corpusapplication withoutwrittenorder,it is anadjudication themerits,which is entitledto this Ex S.W.2d presumption. F.3d Cir. 1999); parteTorres,943 v. Singleton Johnson,178 381,384(5'h 469,472(Tex.Crim.App. 1997). 2. Ineffective Assistanceof Counsel Davidson claims counselwas ineffective by failing to file any motions, conduct an the and or witnesses by aidingandassisting prosecution. independent investigation, contact at of rieht to theeffectiveassistance counsel trial. has A criminaldefendant a constitutional U.S. CoNsr. amend.VI. To prevail on an ineffective assistance claim in the context of a guilty plea, a defendantmust demonstratethat his plea was renderedinvoluntary by showing that (1) counsel's representationfell below an objective standard ofreasonableness,and (2) there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's deficient performance,he would not have pleaded guilty and (1985); wouldhaveinsistedongoingtotrial. Hillv. Lockhart,474U.S.52,56-59 Smithv.Estelle, (1984).We (5'h 711F.2d677,682 Cir. l9S3);seealsoStricklandv. Washington,466U.S.668,687 defer to the statecourt's determination of a claim unlessit appearsthe decision was contrary to or involved an unreasonableapplication of Strickland or resulted in a decision that was basedon an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidencein the statecourt proceedings. Bell v. Cone,535U.S. 685, 698-99(2002);Haynesv. Cain,298 F.3d 375,379-82 (5^ Cir.2002). AssumingDavidson'sassertion that he would havegoneto trial but for counsel'sactionsto be true, we must determine whether counsel's representationfell below an objective standard of reasonableness. In evaluating an ineffective assistanceclaim, a court must indulge a strong professional assistance presumptionthat counsel'sconductfell within the wide rangeof reasonable or sound trial strategy. Strickland,466 U.S. at 668, 688-89. Judicial scrutiny of counsel's performancemust be highly deferential and every effort must be made to eliminate the distorting effectsof hindsight. Id. at 689. By entering a knowing, intelligent and voluntary guilty plea, a defendant waives all nonjurisdictional defects, including claims relating to deprivation of constitutional rights, that the antedate plea. SeeTollettv. Henderson,4l I U.S. 258,267 (1973); Boykin v. Alabama,395 U.S. 238,243 (1969); United States v. Smallwood,920 F.2d 1231, 1240 (5'h Cir. 1991). Because Davidson's guilty plea was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made,see infra, his claims that counselfailedto file anymotions,conductanindependentinvestigation, orcontactwitnesses, which do not involve the voluntariness the plea, are waived. SeeFlorida v. Nixon,543 U.S. 175,187 of (2004);UnitedStatesv. Broce,488 U.S. 563,573-7aQ989);Boykin,395 U.S. at243; UnitedStates v. Williams,6l Fed.Appx. 120 (5thCir. 2003). If a challengedguilty plea is knowing, voluntary, and intelligent, it will be upheld on federal attestation habeas review. Jamesv. Cain,56 F.3d662,66615'h Cir. 1995).Althougha defendant's of voluntarinessat the time of the plea is not an absolutebar to later contrary contentions,it places a heavy burden upon him. United Statesv. Diaz,733 F.2d 371,373-74 (5thCir. 1979). He must show such a strong degree of misunderstanding, duress, or misrepresentation by the court, prosecutor,or his own counsel that his plea would become a constitutionally inadequatebasis for imprisonment.Id. (citing Blackledgev.Allison,43l U.S. 63,75 (1977)). Whenreviewingarecord, a court must give a signed,unambiguousplea agreementgreat evidentiary weight. United Statesv. in solemndeclarations opencourt Abreo,30 F.3d 29,32 (5'hCir. 1994). Additionally, a defendant's are presumed true, and a defendant generally may not recant sworn testimony made at a plea proceeding. v. UnitedStates Fuller,769 F.2d 1095,1099(5'hCir. 1985). that Davidson's guilty plea was in any way The record in this casedoes not demonstrate induced by coercion or misrepresentation the part of his trial counsel. Although there is no on reporter's record of the plea proceeding,the documentaryrecord supportsthe statecourts' implied decision that Davidson's guilty plea was a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent act done with surrounding the plea. sufficient awarenessof the relevant circumstancesand likely consequences recordreflectsthat Davidson Brady v. UnitedStates,397U.5.742,748 (1970). The documentary entered his guilty plea in open court and was advised by counsel and the trial court of his rights, 6 waivers, and the full range of punishment for the offense. Davidson executed the written plea admonishmentsin which he acknowledgedthat he understoodthe written plea admonishments, that he was aware of the consequences his plea, that his plea was made freely, knowingly and of provided by counsel and that voluntarily, that he was completely satisfied with the representation counsel provided fully effective and competent representation,and he judicially confessedto allegations. committing the offense as chargedin the indictment and pled true to the enhancement SeeBlackledge,431 U.S. at 74; Kelley v. Alabama,636 F.2d 1082, 1084(5thCir. 1981). Such representations a defendantduring plea proceedingscarrya strong presumption of truthfulness. by Blackledge,43 I U.S. at 74. Davidson's claim of coercion after the fact, is insufficient to rebut the presumption that he of received effective assistance counseland the presumptionof regularity of the statecourt records. Cir. 1974)(holding statecourtrecords"are entitled v. Seel4/ebster Estelle,505F.2d 926,929-30(5th Babbv.Johnson,6lF. Supp.2d604,607(S.D.Tex. 1999)(same). to apresumptionofregularity''); of and of Counsel'sobligationis to inform a criminal defendant the advantages disadvantages aplea agreement and the attendant statutory and constitutional rights that a guilty plea would forgo. even if he is Libretti v. United States,5l6 U.S. 29,50-51(1995). Often a criminal defendant, unwilling or unable to admit his guilt, will agreeto plead guilty to an offense, having been so informed by counsel, in order to avoid a potentially harsher sentenceby a judge or jury. Such a decision on the part of a defendant does not render counsel's representationdeficient or a plea 25,37 (1970);Bradyv.UnitedStates,39TU.S. involuntary.See NorthCqrolinav.Alfurd,40OU.S. (1970). 742,749-50 II. RECOMMENDATION petitionfor writ of habeas Davidson's corpus should denied. be III. NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT TO PROPOSED AND FINDINGS. CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATION AND CCiNSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO OBJECT A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of this report and recommendationmust file See28U.S.C.$ 636(bX1); l0daysafterbeingservedwithacopy. specificwrittenobjectionswithin Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The court is extendingthe deadlinewithin which to file specific written objections to the United States Magistrate Judge's proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation until October 14,2009. In order to be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or recommendationto which objection is made,statethe basisfor the objection, and speciff the place in the magistrate judge's report and recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporatesby referenceor refers to the briefing judge is not specific. Failure to file specificwritten objectionswill bar the before the magistrate judge that aggrievedparty from appealingthe factual findings and legal conclusionsofthe magistrate are acceptedor adoptedby the district court, except upon grounds ofplain error. SeeDouglass v. Ass'n,79 F.3d 1415,l4l7 (5th Cir. 1996). UnitedServices Automobile IV. ORDER Under 28 U.S.C. $ 636, it is orderedthat eachparty is granteduntil October 14,2009, to serve and file written objections to the United States Magistrate Judge's proposed findings, conclusionso recommendation. It is fuither orderedthat if objections are filed and the opposing and party choosesto file a response,a responseshall be filed within seven(7) days of the filing date of the objections. It is furtherordered that the above-styled numbered and action,previouslyreferredto the United States Magistrate Judgefor findings,conclusions, recommendation, andherebyis and be returned the docketof the United States District Judge. to 23, SIGNEDSeptember 2009. ru/w CHARLESBLEIL UNITED STATESMAGISTRATE JUDGE 9
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
