Beeson v. Stephens, No. 4:2015cv00854 - Document 15 (S.D. Tex. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 11 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Brief in Support, dismissing 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. A Certificate of Appealability is denied. (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified. (aboyd, 4)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Beeson v. Stephens Doc. 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION DARYL LEE BEESON, TDCJ #: 1788958 Petitioner, v. WILLIAM STEPHENS, Respondent. § § § § § § § § § § CIVIL ACTION NO. H-15-0854 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Daryl Lee Beeson filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person in State Custody ("Federal Petition") state conviction (Docket Entry No.1). challenging his Pending before the court is Respondent William Stephens' Motion for Summary Judgment with Brief in Support ("ReSpondent's Motion for Summary Judgment") Entry No. 11). (Docket For the reasons stated below, Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted, and Beeson's Federal Petition will be denied. I. Background and Facts On March 29, 2012, in the 221st Judicial District Court of Montgomery County, Texas, a jury found Beeson guilty of two counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child. 1 Beeson elected to have lJudgment of Conviction by Jury, Docket Entry No. 12-10, pp. 79-80, 82-83. Dockets.Justia.com punishment assessed by the jury, which sentenced him to consecutive life sentences. 2 On August 22, 2013, the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas affirmed Beeson's conviction. 3 Although Beeson sought and was granted an extension until November 22, 2013, to file his petition for discretionary review ("PDR"), Beeson did not file a PDR.4 The appellate court issued its Mandate on October 28, 2013. 5 On December application. 6 12, 2014, On March 18, Beeson 2015, signed the Texas his state habeas Court of Criminal Appeals denied relief without a written order based on the findings of the trial court.7 On March 29, 2015, Beeson signed his pending Federal Petition. 8 Now before the court is Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment. 2Id. 3First Court of Appeals' Memorandum Opinion, Docket Entry No. 12-24. 4Notice from Court of Criminal Appeals, Docket Entry No. 12-27, p. 1.; State Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Application No. WR-82,851-01, Docket Entry No. 12-34, p. 7. 5Mandate, Appendix E to Beeson's State Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Docket Entry No. 12-35, pp. 77-78. 6State Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Application No. WR-82,851-01, Docket Entry No. 12-34, p. 26. 7Action Taken on State Habeas Application, Application No. WR-82,851-01, Docket Entry No. 12-29, p. 1. 8Federal Petition, Docket Entry No. I, p. 12. -2- II. Statute of Limitations A. Statute of Limitations Period The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA") governs federal habeas petitions filed after the AEDPA's effective date. Lindh v. Murphy, 117 S. Ct. 2059, 2068 (1997). The AEDPA includes a one-year statute of limitations beginning on the date when the judgment became final by either the conclusion of direct review or the review. 28 judgment, U.S.C. § expiration of 2244 (d) (1) . the In time its for motion seeking for such summary Respondent contends that Beeson's Federal Petition is time-barred by the statute of limitations set forth in the AEDPA. 9 Beeson responds that his Federal Petition is not time-barred and, in the alternative, that he is entitled to equitable tolling of the statute of limitations. 10 Beeson contends that his conviction did not become final until the ninety day period for filing a petition of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court expired, notwithstanding his failure to file a PDR in the conviction does not Texas become Court final of by Criminal the Appeals. 11 conclusion of If a direct review, it becomes final by "the expiration of the time for seeking 9Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment, Docket Entry No. 11, pp. 4-6. 10Petitioner's Response to Motion for Summary Judgment, Docket Entry No. 13, pp. 3-6. 11Id. at 3-4. -3- such review." determined 28 U.S.C. that, if a § 2244 (d) (1) (A). defendant The Fifth Circuit has stops the appeals process by failing to file a PDR, the one-year limitations period begins to run when the time for filing a PDR expires. Roberts v. Cockrell, 319 F.3d 690, 693-95 (5th Cir. 2003). Beeson sought and was granted an extension to file a PDR by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. 12 With the extension, Beeson's deadline to Therefore, file the a PDR one-year was extended limitations to November period began 22, to 2013.13 run on November 22, 2013, when the thirty day period for filing a PDR in state court ended. account the See Roberts, one-year limitations 319 F.3d at 694. period, Taking into Beeson's timely file his Federal Petition was November 24, deadline to 2014. Because Beeson's state application for writ of habeas corpus was not signed until December 12, 2014, the limitations period was not tolled while his state application was pending. 660 F.3d 833, 834-35 (5th Cir. 2011) Accordingly, the one-year i See Medley v. See 28 U.S.C. limitations period § Thaler, 2244 (d) (2). expired on November 24, 2014, and Beeson's Federal Petition filed on March 29, 2015, is time-barred absent equitable tolling. 12Notice from Court of Criminal Appeals, Docket Entry No. 12-27, p. 1. -4- B. Equitable Tolling The AEDPA's limitations period is subject to equitable tolling in "rare and exceptional circumstances." 158 F.3d 806, 811 (5th Cir. 1998). Davis v. Johnson, The Supreme Court has held that the AEDPA's limitations period may be equitably tolled only if the petitioner (1) diligently pursued his claim and (2) demonstrates that extraordinary circumstances beyond his petition's late filing. control caused the Holland v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. 2549, 2562 (2010); see also Palacios v. Stephens, 723 F.3d 600, 604 (5th Cir. 2013) . The petitioner bears the burden of establishing grounds warranting equitable tolling. 1807, 1814 Pace v. (2005); Clarke v. Rader, DiGuglielmo, 721 F.3d 339, 125 S. 344 Ct. (5th Cir. 2013) . Beeson contends that he is entitled to equitable tolling because of the inadequacies of the prison law library and delays caused by "non-disciplinary lockdowns." 14 Generally, an inadequate law "rare library does not constitute a circumstance" warranting equitable tolling. 204 F.3d 168, 171-73 (5th Cir. 2000). and exceptional Felder v. Johnson, Beeson admits that he has the ability to obtain federal legal materials from another prison unit by submitting a request form.15 Although Beeson alleges that 14Petitioner's Response to Motion for Summary Judgment with Brief in Support, Docket Entry No. 13, pp. 5-6. 15Id. at 5. -5- during a lockdown he is unable to obtain a request form for legal materials, he also admits that only two lockdowns occurred in the pas t year. 16 process Delays for caused by obtaining intermittent materials legal lockdowns do not and the constitute "extraordinary circumstances" warranting equitable tolling. In addition to demonstrating "extraordinary circumstances," a petitioner must also show that he pursued his claims diligently to justify equitable tolling Holland, 130 S. Ct. at 2562. of the statute limitations. Beeson has not demonstrated that he All of Beeson's federal habeas diligently pursued his claims. claims were raised in his state habeas petition. delays, of Even with regular it should not require more than twelve months to prepare and file a federal petition that is essentially identical to a petition already filed with the state. Beeson did not sign his federal petition until March 29, 2015, more than four months after the limitations period expired. Because Beeson did not diligently pursue habeas relief when he waited more than four months after the expiration of the limitations period to file his federal petition, which alleged the same claims as raised in his petition, he is not entitled to equitable tolling. HId. at 5-6. -6- state habeas III. Certificate of Appealability Under 28 U.S.C. 2253 Beeson must obtain a certificate of § appealability ("COA") before he can appeal this Memorandum Opinion and Order dismissing his Petition. the petitioner makes A COA will not be issued unless "a substantial showing of the denial of a 28 U.S.C. constitutional right." § 2253 (c) (2). This standard "includes showing that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to Slack v. deserve encouragement to proceed further." 120 S. Ct. 1595, 1603-04 (2000) omitted). McDaniel, (internal quotations and citations If denial of relief is based on procedural grounds, the petitioner must not only show that "'jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right,' but also that they 'would find it debatable whether procedural ruling.'" Cir. 2001) original) . the district court Beazley v. Johnson, (quoting Slack, 120 S. Ct. was correct in 242 F.3d 248, 263 at 1604) (emphasis its (5th in A district court may deny a COA, sua sponte, without requiring further briefing or argument. 211 F.3d 895, 898 (5th Cir. 2000). Alexander v. Johnson, This court concludes that Beeson is not entitled to a COA under the applicable standards. See 28 U. S . C. § 2253 (c) . -7- IV. For the reasons Conclusion and Order explained above, the court ORDERS the following: 1. Respondent Stephens' Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 11) is GRANTED 2. Beeson's Petition for a Writ of Habeas CorpuaBy a Person in State Custody (Docket Entry No.1) is DISMISSED. 3. A Certificate of Appealability is DENIED. SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 30th UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -8-
]]>
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.
