Crozier v. Stephens, No. 4:2013cv02744 - Document 15 (S.D. Tex. 2014)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 12 MOTION to Dismiss with Brief in Support, dismissing 1 Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus in State Custody. A Certificate of Appealability is denied. (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified. (aboyd, 4)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION BRANDON CROZIER, TDCJ-CID NO. 1576713, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM STEPHENS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Criminal Institutions Division, Respondent. § § § § § § § § § § § § § CIVIL ACTION NO. H-13-2744 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On September 17, 2013, Brandon Crozier, proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody parole ("Habeas (Docket Petition") Entry challenging No.1). Pending the revocation before the of court his is Respondent's Motion to Dismiss with Brief in Support ("Motion" ) (Docket Entry No. the court will grant 12). Respondent's For the reasons stated below, Motion and dismiss Crozier's Habeas Petition. I. On April 16, Factual and Procedural Background 2009, Crozier pleaded guilty to burglary of a habitation and two counts of felony D.W.I. in the 216th District Court of Gillespie County, Texas. 1 Crozier was sentenced to five- year prison terms for each offense, the terms of the sentences to run concurrently.2 Crozier's present action does not challenge the validity of any of his convictions. 3 On October 11, 2010, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice ("TDCJ") released Crozier to parole. 4 On four occasions the Parole Division issued a pre-revocation warrant of arrest for Crozier. 5 After the fourth pre-revocation warrant was board revoked Crozier's parole. 6 custody.? issued, the parole Crozier was returned to TDCJ's As part of the revocation of parole, Crozier's street- time credit of 7 months and 17 days (from 8/31/2912 to 4/18/2013) was forfeited. s "Street-Time credit refers to the calendar time a person receives towards his sentence for days spent on parole or lJudgment and Sentence, Plea of Guilty, Exhibit A to Motion, Docket Entry No. 12-2, pp. 2, 5, 8. Page citations to state court trial documents, including the record and state court orders, are to the pagination imprinted by the federal court's electronic filing system at the top and right of the document. Page citations to the federal briefs are to the native page numbers at the bottom of the page in the documents. 3Habeas Petition, Docket Entry No.1, p. 2. 4Affidavit of Charley Valdez, Entry No. 12-3, p. 3. 5Id. 6Id. ?Id. SId. -2- Exhibit B to Motion, Docket Ex parte Spann, 132 S.W.3d 390, 392 n.2 mandatory supervision." (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). Following the revocation of Crozier's parole, Crozier filed this Habeas Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 Crozier claims that the parole board's decision ("AEDPA"). resulted in extended confinement beyond his initial sentence in violation of both the Ex Post Facto Clause and the Due Process Clause. 9 The Respondent argues that all of Crozier's claims are unexhausted. lo II. A. Analysis Exhaustion The AEDPA provides that an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall not be granted unless the applicant has exhausted the remedies § available 2254 (b) (1) (A) , (C). in the state's courts. 28 U.S.C "The exhaustion doctrine seeks to afford the state courts a meaningful opportunity to consider allegations of legal error without interference from the federal Vasquez v. Hillery, 106 S. Ct. 617, 620 (1986). judiciary." A Texas prisoner satisfies the exhaustion requirement when the substance of the federal claims have been fairly presented to the state's highest court by filing either (1) a direct appeal followed, if necessary, by a petition for discretionary review in the Texas 9Habeas Petition, Docket Entry No. I, pp. 6-7. lOId. -3- Court of Criminal Appeals; or (2) a state petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. 1998); Whitehead v. Sones v. Richardson v. Johnson, 157 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. Hargett, 61 F.3d 410, 414-15 (5th Cir. 1995); Procunier, 762 F.2d 429, 430-32 (5th Cir. 1985). Habeas petitioners are not required to pursue both avenues of relief to meet the exhaustion requirement. Myers v. Collins, 919 F.2d 1074, 1076 (5th Cir. 1990). B. Analysis of Crozier's Unexhausted Claims The court understands the Petitioner to assert three specific grounds for relief: (1) Revoking Crozier's parole and the forfeiture of his street-time applies retroactively to Crozier's sentence and constitutes and Ex Post Facto Law; (2) The Parole Board violated Crozier's due process rights by denying him the opportunity to attend his parole revocation hearing; (3 ) The Parole Board violated Crozier's due process rights by changing the location of his parole hearing without notification. The court is unable to test the merits of Crozier's claims until he has presented them to the highest court in Texas through (1) a direct appeal followed, if necessary, by a petition for discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals; or (2) a state petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. F.3d at 414-15; Richardson, 762 F.2d at 430-32. -4- Sones, 61 Respondent argues that none of Crozier's claims have been presented to Texas courts. 11 In Crozier's petition he acknowledges that he did not challenge his Respondent's Motion to parole revocation in any state court. 12 Dismiss will therefore be granted. III. Although Appealability Alexander v. curiam). Certificate of Appealability Crozier has ("COA"), Johnson, the 211 not yet court requested may F.3d 895, deny 898 Williams v. Puckett, 283 F.3d 272, 277 a a Certificate COA sua (5th Cir. of sponte. 2000) (per To obtain a COA Crozier must make a substantial showing 28 U.S.C. of the denial of a constitutional right. such a showing Crozier must § 2253 (c) (2) (5th Cir. 2002). demonstrate that the i To make issues are debatable among reasonable jurists, that a court could resolve the issues in a different manner, or that the questions are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. F.3d 1069, 1073 (5th Cir. 1998) (5th Cir. 1996). i Lucas v. Johnson, 132 Newby v. Johnson, 81 F.3d 567, 569 For the reasons stated in this Memorandum Opinion and Order, Crozier has not made a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right. The court will therefore deny a COA in this action. 11Motion, Docket Entry No. 12, pp. I, 3-5. 12Habeas Petition, Docket Entry No. I, p. 5, question 14. -5- IV. For the reasons Conclusion and Order explained above, the court ORDERS the following: 1. Respondent Stephens's Motion to Dismiss with Brief in Support (Docket Entry No. 12) is GRANTED. 2. Crozier's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person in State Custody (Docket Entry No.1) is DISMISSED. 3. A Certificate of Appealability is DENIED. SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this the 28th day of May, 2014. , SIM LAKE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -6-
]]>
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.
