Gibson, et al v. TDCJ-ID, No. 1:2000cv00707 - Document 50 (E.D. Tex. 2010)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION and Order. Ordered that petitioner's motion for reconsideration of an evidentiary hearing is denied. Signed by Judge Thad Heartfield on 3/2/2010. (bjc, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BEAUMONT DIVISION TRENT ELLIOT GIBSON § VS. § DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:00cv707 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Petitioner Trent Elliot Gibson, an inmate confined at the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Discussion Petitioner brings this petition challenging the validity of his state court conviction. The court previously entered an order denying petitioner's motion for full evidentiary hearing without prejudice to reconsidertion upon reassertion following a response by the respondent. The respondent has responded to petitioner's motion for full evidentiary hearing, as well as motion for reconsideration. respondent asserts that petitioner's renewed request for The an evidentiary hearing related to matters that occurred at the time of petitioner's guilty plea are barred by limitations. Further, the respondent asserts that the applicable statute prohibits granting an evidentiary petitioner. hearing under the circumstances presented by Accordingly, the respondent contends an evidentiary hearing is not necessary. 1 After due consideration, the court is of the opinion that an evidentiary hearing is neither authorized by statute nor necessary. Additionally, the claims for which petitioner seeks the hearing relating to his guilty plea and placement on deferred adjudication are barred by the applicable one-year limitations period. U.S.C. §§ 2254(e)(2), 2244. See 28 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that petitioner's motion for reconsideration of an evidentiary hearing is DENIED. SIGNED this the 2 day of March, 2010. ____________________________ Thad Heartfield United States District Judge 2

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.