Flores v. Davis, No. 4:2016cv02306 - Document 15 (S.D. Tex. 2016)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying as moot 9 Motion for Leave to Stay the Proceedings in Abeyance; granting 13 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Brief in Support. COA is denied. (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified.(gclair, 4)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Flores v. Davis Doc. 15 United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED November 09, 2016 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION David J. Bradley, Clerk JOEL FLORES, TDCJ #818608, Petitioner, CIVIL ACTION NO . H -16-2306 LORIE DAVIS , Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice , Correctional Institutions Division , Respondent . MEMODAHDUM OPIN ION AND ORDER The petitioner, Joel Flores ( TDCJ #818608), has filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person in State Custody (upetition' ( ') Docket Entry No. challenging the calculation of his sentence . The petitioner has also filed a ' Motion for) Leave 'E Stay the Proceeding in Abeyance' (uMotion to Stay' pending ' ') review of his claims in state court ( Docket Entry No. which will be denied as moot . Noting that the petitioner's claims have been rejected by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the respondent has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment with Brief in Support (' l Respondent's Motion') ' ( Docket Entry No. 13). The petitioner has filed a Traverse to the Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment to Dismiss Traverse/ ( ') Docket Entry No . With Prejudice (upetitioner's After considering a11 of the pleadings , the state court records, and the applicable law , the Dockets.Justia.com court will grant Respondent 's Motion and will dism iss this action for the reasons explained below . Backqround Flores is currently incarcerated in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice the result February Correctional Institutions Division (A 'TDCJ' as ') felony convictions from Harris County x On 1998, Flores was convicted of possession with intent to deliver cocaine in Harris County cause number 761902 .2 Flores received an l8-year prison sentence in that case .3 On July l3, 2006, Flores was released on parole from the sentence that he was serving in cause number 761902 .4 While on parole , Flores was arrested and charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon in Harris County cause number 144878901010 .5 On August 3l, 2015 , Flores was convicted of those charges and sentenced to two years ' imprisonment .6 His parole in cause number 761902 was also revoked and he returned to TDCJ custody on September 25, 2015.7 l Affidav it of Charley Valdez , Exhibit Motion , Docket Entry No . 13-1 , p . 3 . 2Id . 3Id . 4Id . 5Id . 6Id . 7Id . - 2- A to Respondent's When Flores returned to TDCJ , he learned that he was not eligible for credit on the sentence that he was serving cause number 716902 for the time he spent out of custody on parole ( e., iv nstreet-time credit' ') On October administrative Time Dispute calculation sentence .g of his 2015, Flores filed an Resolution on Form October to challenge the 2015, prison officials confirmed that Flores was not eligible for street time Pursuant 508. 283( b) the Texas Government Code because of his conviction for aggravated assau lt with a deadly weapon x o On February 1 , 2016, Flores filed an Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 11 .07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure to challenge the calculation of the sentence he received in Harris County cause number 761902 .1 Flores argued that he was 1 denied street time in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment x z On June 2016 , the state habeas corpus court entered findings of fact and concluded that Flores was not entitled to relief x 3 The Application was then forwarded to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals . 8Id . 9Id . l0 d I l Application for l No . 12-4 , pp . 5-21 . a Writ of Habeas Corpu s, Docket Entry l 2Id . at 10-11. H state 's Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law , and Order C' Findings pp . 64-68 . and Conclusions' '), Docket Entry No . 12-4, On July 25, 2016, Flores filed the pending Petition x4 Flores argues as he did in state court that he was denied street time in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause x s Acknowledging that the Texas Court of Crim inal Appeals had not yet completed its review of his claims at the time he submitted h is Petition , Flores also filed a Motion to Stay .l Shortly thereafter , 6 on August 24 , 2016, the Texas Court of Crim inal Appeals denied Flores ' Application w ithout a written order based on findings made by the state habeas corpus court x ? Because the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has adjudicated Flores' claims, his Motion to Stay is now moot and will be denied . Noting that Flores' claim s were rejected in state court, respondent argues that the Petition must be dism issed because the claims lack merit x 8 II . Standard of Review To the extent that the petitioner's claims were adjudicated on the merits in state court, his claims are subject to review under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty CA AEDPA' , codified at 28 U. . Q S C. 5 2254 ( d). M petition , Docket Entry No . Act of 1996 Under the AEDPA a p . 1O . l5jd . at ( g l6 Docket Entry No . l Action Taken on Writ No . 85,223-02 , Docket Entry No . 12-3, 7 p. l Respondent's Motion , Docket Entry No . 8 federal habeas corpus court may not grant relief unless the state court's adjudication hresulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of , clearly established federal law , as determined United States E.q' ' by the Supreme 28 U .S. C. 5 2254 ( 1). d)( Court of the ' state court's ' A decision is deemed contrary to clearly estab lished federal 1aw reaches a legal conclusion in direct conflict with a prior decision of the Supreme Court or reaches a different conclusion than the Supreme Court on materially indistingu ishable facts.' Matamoros v . Stephens, 783 F.3d 212, 215 ( ' 5th Cir. 2015) ( citations omitted) see also Williams v. Tavlor, l20 S . Ct. 1495, 1519-20 ( 2000). To constitute an nunreasonable application of' ' clearly established federal law , a state court's holding Mmust be objectively unreasonable, not merely wrong; even clear error will not suffice.' ' Woods v. Donald, l35 S. 1372, 1376 ( 2015) ( quoting White v. Woodall, 134 S . Ct. 1697, 1702 ( 2014)). 'To ' satisfy this high bar , a habeas petitioner is required to 'show that the state court's ru ling on the claim being presented in federal court was so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and comprehended in existing 1aw beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement.'' Id. ( ' quoting Harrinqton v . Richter, 131 S. Ct . The AEDPA 'imposes 786-87 ( 2011)) a ïhighly evaluating state-court rulings,' deferential standard for E which) 'demands that state-court decisions be given the benefit of the doubt .'' Renico ' v. Lett, 13O S . Ct. 1855, 1862 ( 2010) ( citations omitted). This standard is intentionally 'difficult to meet' because it was meant ' ' to bar relitigation of claims already rejected in state proceedings and to preserve federal habeas review as ua 'guard against extreme malfunctions in the state criminal justice systems,' not a substitute for ordinary error correction through appeal.' Richter , ' l3l S. Ct. at 786 ( quoting Jackson v . Virqinia, 99 S. Ct . 2781, 2796, n.5 ( 1979) ( Stevens, concurringl); see also White, 134 S . Ct . at 1702 . A state court's factual determ inations are also entitled to deference on federal habeas corpus review . Findings of fact are npresumed to be correct' unless the petitioner rebuts those find' ings with 'clear and convincing evidence.' 28 U .S. 5 2254 ( ' ' C. e) Th is presumption of correctness extends not only to express factual findings, but also to the state court 's implicit findings . See Garcia v . Quarterman, 454 F.3d 441, 444-45 ( 5th Cir. 2006) ( citing Summers v. Dretke, 861, 876 2005); Younq v . Dretke, 356 F.3d 616, 629 ( 5th Cir. 2004)). If a claim presents a question of fact , a petitioner cannot obtain federal habeas relief unless he shows that the state court 's denia l of relief 'was based ' on an unreasonable determ ination evidence presented 5 2254 ( 2) d)( the facts light of the the State court proceeding .' ' 28 U .S .C . A federal habeas corpus court n may not characterize these state -court factual determ inations as unreasonab le 'merely because ( it) would have reached a different conclusion in the first instance.'' ' Brumfield v . Cain, 135 S. Ct. 2269, 2277 ( 2015) ( quoting Wood v . Allen, l30 S. Ct . 841, 849 ( 2010)). 'Instead, ' 5 2254 ( ( requires that E federal courtq accord the state trial d) 2) a court substantial deference .' ' Id . 111 . Discussion When Flores' parole was revoked in 2015 the govern ing statute on street-time credit provided as follow s: If the parole , mandatory supervision , or conditional pardon of a person described by Section 508.149( a) is revoked, the person may be required to serve the remaining portion of the sentence on which the person was released . The remaining portion is computed w ithout credit for the time from the date of the person 's release to the date of revocation . Tex . Gov't Code 5 508. 283( b) that Flores was not The state habeas corpus court found eligible street-time credit under 5 508. 283( of the Texas Government Code because when his parole 5) was revoked he was serv ing a sentence for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon , which is an offense listed in Texas Government Code 5 508. 149( 7). 9 Noting that Flores was a person convicted a)( 1 of an aggravated offense listed in ï 508. 149 ( a), the state habeas corpus court concluded that prison officials properly applied 5 508.283 ( to deny Flores street-time credit following his parole 5) revocation .z o lg Findings and Conclusions, Docket Entry No . 12-4 , pp . 66-67 . 2OId Flores does not demonstrate that the state court 's conclusion was incorrect or contrary to clearly established Supreme Court precedent. In that respect, as a person described by 5 5O8.149 ( a), Flores cannot establish that he had a constitutionally protected liberty interest his street-time credit or that he was denied street-time credit in violation of the right to due process . See Rhodes v. Thaler, 713 F. 264, 267 ( 3d 5th Cir. 2013). Accordingly, Flores fails to establish a valid claim for relief under 28 U .S .C . 5 2254 . Absent a valid claim for relief , the Respondent's Motion will be granted and the Petition will be dismissed . IV . Certificate of Appealability Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases now requires a district court to issue or deny a certificate of appealability when entering a final order that is adverse to the petitioner . certificate of appealability w ill not issue unless the petitioner makes na substantial show ing of the denial of a constitutional right,' 28 U.S. ' C. 5 2253 ( 2), which requires a petitioner c)( demonstrate uthat reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong .' Tennard v . Dretke, 124 S. Ct. 2562, 2565 ( ' 2004) ( quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 1595, 1604 ( 2000)). Under the controlling standard this requires a petitioner to show uthat reasonable jurists could debate whether ( or, for that matter, agree - 8- that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were 'adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further .'' Miller-El, 123 S . Ct . at 1039 . ' Where denial of relief based procedural grounds the petitioner must show not only that ujurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial a constitutional right,' but also that they uwould find ' debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling .' ' Slack , at 16 04 . A district court may deny a certificate appealability , sua sponte , without requiring further briefing or argument . See Alexander v . Johnson, 211 F. 3d 895, 898 ( 5th Cir. 2000) For reasons set forth above, the court concludes that jurists of reason would not debate whether the petitioner states a valid claim or that the Petition should be resolved a different manner . Therefore, a certificate of appealability will not issue . Conclusion and Order Based on the foregoing , the court ORDERS as follows : The Motion for Leave to Stay the Proceeding in Abeyance filed by Joel Flores ( Docket Entry No . 9) is DENIED as moot . Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment ( Docket Entry No. 13) is GRANTED . 3. The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person in state Custody filed by Joel Flores ( Docket Entry No . 1) is DENIED, and this action will be dismissed with prejudice. A certificate of appealability is DENIED . The Clerk shall provide a copy of this Memorandum Op inion and Order to the parties . SIGNED at Houston , Texas, on this 9th day of November , 2016. # ' SIM LAK E UNITED STATES D ISTRICT JUDGE - 1 0-
]]>
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.
