Felan v. Davis, No. 6:2018cv00060 - Document 13 (S.D. Tex. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION granting 10 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Brief in Support; denying 12 MOTION to Amend 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. COA is denied. (Signed by Judge Kenneth M Hoyt) Parties notified.(gclair, 4)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Felan v. Davis Doc. 13 United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED IN TH E UN ITED STATE S D IST RIC T C O U R T FO R TH E SO U TH ER N D ISTR ICT O F TEX A S V ICT O RIA DIV ISIO N September 26, 2019 David J. Bradley, Clerk JESSE FELA N , (TDCJ-CID #02156697) Petitioner, CIV IL A CTION N O . V -18-0060 V S. LORIE D AV IS, Respondent. M EM O M N D UM AN D O PIN IO N Petitioner,JesseFelan,seekshabeascorpusreliefunder28U.S.C.j2254,challenging a conviction in the377thJudicialD istrictCourtofV ictoriaCounty,Texas.Respondentfiled am otion forsummaryjudgmentandcopiesofthestatecourtrecord.Felanhasnotfiledaresponse,buthe seeks leaveto am end hispetition. The threshold issue isw hetherFelan has presented m eritorious groundsforfederalhabeascorpusrelief.B ased on thepleadings,the m otionsand briefs,the record, andtheapplicablelaw ,the Courtgrantsrespondent'sm otion,deniesFelan'spetition,andenterstinal judgmentdismissingthecaseby separateorder.Thereasonsfortheserulingsaresetoutbelow. 1. Background Felanpleadedguiltytothefelonyoffenseofevadingarrestordetention.(CauseNumber1706-30066-17).Felanalsopleadedtl'uetotheenhancementparagraphsrelatingtopriorconvictions forburglary ofa building in CauseN um ber95-3-16,099-A and possession ofa controlled substance in Cause N um ber 01-7-18,964-A . O n August23,2017,the courtsentenced Felan to tive years Dockets.Justia.com imprisonment.Felan waivedhisrightto appeal.Felan filed an apptication forstatehabeascorpus reliefon M arch 29,2018,w hich the Texas Coul'tofCrim inalAppealsdenied w ithoutw ritten order on M ay 16,2018. On July 27,2018,this Courtreceived Felan's federal petition. Felan contends that his conviction isvoid forthe follow ing reasons' . (1) Counsel,Ashley Pall,rendered ineffectiveassistance during hispleaproceedingswhen counselcoerced Felan into pleading guilty and failed to inform him oftheconsequencesofhisplea; The trialcoul'tcom m itted errorin applying the law to the facts ofhiscase; There w asinsufficientevidence to supporta finding ofguilt;and TheTexasCoul'tofCriminalAppeals(tûCCA'')ûkdidnotanswerthemix questionsoflaw.'' ll. The Applicable L egalStandards This Courtreview s Felan's petition for w rit of habeas corpus under the federalhabeas statutes,asamendedbytheAntiterrorism and EffectiveDeathPenaltyActof1996(AEDPA).28 Sections2254(d)(1)and(2)ofAEDPA setoutthestandardsofreview forquestionsoffact, questionsoflaw,andmixedquestionsoffactandlaw thatresultinanadjudicationonthemerits. AnadjudicationonthemeritsSkisaterm ofartthatreferstowhetheracourt'sdispositionofthecase issubstantive,asopposedtoprocedural.''M illerv.Johnson,200F.3d274,281(5thCir.2000).A state-courtdeterm ination ofquestionsof1aw and m ixed questionsoflaw and factisreviewed under 28 U.S.C.j 2254(d)(l) and receives deference unless it çswas contral' y to, or involved an unreasonable application ofclearly established Federallaw ,asdeterm ined by the Suprem e Courtof theUnited States.''Hillv.Johnson,2l0F.3d481,485(5th Cir.2000).A state-courtdecision is ikcontraryto''SupremeCourtprecedentif:(1)thestatecourt'sconclusionisûûoppositetothatreached by (the Supreme Courtjon a question oflaw''or(2)the ûistate coul'tconfrontsfactsthatare m aterially indistinguishable from a relevant Suprem e Coul' tprecedent''and anives atan opposite result. Williamsv.Taylor,120 S.Ct.1495 (2000). A statecoul'tunreasonably appliesSupreme Courtprecedentifitunreasonably appliesthe correctlegalrule to the factsofa particularcase,or itûûunreasonablyextendsalegalprinciplefrom (SupremeCourtlprecedenttoanew contextwhere itshould notapply orunreasonably refusesto extend thatprinciple to anew contextw here itshould apply.''1d.at1495.Questionsoffactfoundbythestatecourtarekspresumedtobecorrect...and greceiveldeference...unlessitSwasbasedonanunreasonabledeterminationofthefactsinlight oftheevidencepresentedintheStatecourtproceeding.'''Hill,210F.3dat485(quoting28U.S.C. j2254(d)(2)). A state court'sfactualfindingsare entitled to deference on federalhabeascorpusreview and arepresumedcorrectundersection2254(e)(1)unlessthepetitionerrebutsthosetindingswith(dclear andconvincingevidence.''Garciav.Quarterman,454F.3d441,444(5thCir.2006)(citingHughes v.Dretke,412 F.3d 582,589(5thCir.2005)and28U.S.C.j2254(e)(1)).Thisdeferenceextends notonly to expressfindingsoffact,butto the im plicittindingsofthe statecourtasw ell.G arcia,454 F.3dat444-45(citingSummersv.Dretke,43lF.3d861,876(5thCir.2005);Youngv.Dretke,356 F.3d 616,629(5thCir.2004)). W hile,ûtgalsageneralprinciple,Rule56oftheFederalRulesofCivilProcedure,relatingto summary judgment,applieswith equalforce in the contextofhabeas corpus cases,''Clark v. Johnson,202F.3d760,764(5thCir.),cert.denied,531U.S.831(2000),theruleappliesonlytothe extentthatitdoesnotconflictwith thehabeasrules. Section 2254(e)(1)- which mandatesthat findingsoffactm adeby a statecourtareûipresum ed to be correct''- overridesthe ordinary rulethat, inasummaryjudgmentproceeding,al1disputedfactsmustbeconstruedinthelightmostfavorable tothenonmovingparty.Unlessthepetitionercanûtrebutg1thepresumptionofcorrectnessbyclear and convincing evidence''asto the state court'stindingsoffact,those tindingsm ustbeaccepted as correct.Smith v.Cockrell,311F.3d661,668(5thCir.2002). Felan isproceeding pro se.A pro sehabeaspetition isconstrued liberally and notheld to the sam e stringentand rigorousstandardsaspleadings filed by law yers. See M artin v.M axey,98 F.3d 844,847n.4(5th Cir.1996)4Guidrozv.Lynaugh,852F.2d 832,834(5thCir.1988);Woodallv. Foti,648F.2d268,271(5thCir.UnitA June1981).ThisCoul'tbroadlyinterpretsFelan'sstateand federalhabeaspetitions.Bledsuev.Johnson,188F.3d250,255(5thCir.1999). 111. The Claim asto the Voluntariness ofthe G uilty Plea (Ground 1) Felan claim sthathisguilty plea is involuntary because counselcoerced him into pleading guilty and failed to adequately inform him ofthe consequences ofhisplea. Felan arguesthathis tiplea was involuntaly because of coercion, com fusion, and unconstitutionally ineffective and pressurefrom thetrialcourt.''(D.E.l,p.6).Felanstatesthatheikwouldnothavepledguiltytothe felony charge of evading arrest detention w ith previous convictions,butw ould have insisted on goingforwardwithhisjurytrial.''(1d.4. A federalcourtw illuphold aguilty pleachallenged in ahabeascorpusproceeding iftheplea wasknowing,voluntaryandintelligent.Hobbsv.Blackburn,752F.2d 1079,1081(5thCir.),ccr/. deniel 474U.S.838(1985).A guiltypleaisinvalidifthedefendantdoesnotunderstandthenature ()tFL?KIIL3ZS402(118yN'l8-()6)6()d(1lv:'pd ofthe constitutionalprotection thathe isw aiving orifhe has such an incom plete understanding of the chargesagainsthim thathisplea cannotstand asan adm ission ofguilt.H enderson v.M organ, 426U.S.637,645n.13(1976).Thecriticalissueindeterminingwhetherapleawasvoluntaly and intelligentisûsw hetherthe defendantunderstoodthenatureand substance ofthechargesagainsthim , and notnecessarily w hetherheunderstood theirtechnicallegaleffect.'' Taylorv.W hitley,933 F.2d 325,329(5th Cir.1991),cert.denieJ 503U.S.988(1992).lftherecordshowsthatthedefendant ûiunderstood thechargeand itsconsequences,''thisCourtw illuphold aguilty plea asvoluntaly even ifthetrialjudgefailedtoexplaintheoffense.Davisv.Butler,825F.2d 892,893(5thCir.1987). A pleaofguiltyw aivesanum berofconstitutionalrights.Unitedstatesv.Ruiz,536 U .S.622, 628 (2002);Boykin v.Alabama,395 U.S.238,242-43 (1969).Consequently,Skthe Constitution insists,am ong other things,thatthe defendantenter a guilty plea thatis tvoluntary'and thatthe defendantmustmakerelatedwaiversûknowingglyl,intelligentglyl,(andlwithsufticientawareness oftherelevantcircumstancesandlikely consequences.''Ruiz,536U.S.at629(quotingBrady v. Unitedstates,397U.S.742,748(1970));accordBousleyv.Unitedstates,523U.S.614,618(1998) (apleaidisconstitutionallyvalidonlytotheextentitisûvoluntary'andlintelligent''')(quotingBrady, 397U.S.at748).A pleainducedbythreats,improperpromises,deception,ormisrepresentationis notvoluntary.See United Statesv.Amaya,11lF.3d 386,389(5th Cir.1997).A pleaqualifiesas intelligentw hen the crim inaldefendantentersitafterreceiving (drealnotice ofthetrue nature ofthe charge againsthim ,the firstand m ostuniversally recognized requirem entofdueprocess.''Bousley, 523U.S.at618(quotingSmithv.O 'GrJJy,3l2U.S.329,334(1941)). ln determ ining w hether a plea is intelligent,(ûthe criticalissue is w hether the defendant understood the nature and substance of the charges againsthim ,and not necessarily whether he O T-AOSKMI-IJZIIl8ïvl8-414)64)d(1lwpd understoodtheirtechnicallegaleffect.''Taylorv.Whitley,933F.2d325,329(5thCir.1991).tk-l-he voluntarinessofaplea isdeterm ined by tconsidering allofthe relevantcircum stancessurrounding it.'''Fischerv.Wainwright,584 F.2d 691,693(5thCir.1978)(quotingBrady,397U.S.at749). Courts considering challenges to guilty pleas Cthave focused on three core concerns:absence of coercion,the defendant's understanding of the charges, and a realistic understanding of the consequencesofaguiltyplea.''US.v.Gracia,983F.2d625,627-28(5th Cir.1993).A realistic understanding ofthe consequencesofa guilty plea m eansthatthe defendantknow sSçthe im m ediate and autom atic consequences ofthatplea such asthe m axim um sentence length or fine.''D uke v. Cockrell,292F.3d414,416(5thCir.2002).Cklfadefendantunderstandsthechargesagainsthim, understandsthe consequencesofaguiltyplea,and voluntarily choosestoplead guilty,w ithoutbeing coerced to do so,theguilty plea ...w illbeupheld on federalreview .''Frankv.Blackburn,646 F.2d 873,882(5thCir.l980)(enbanc),modsedonothergrounds,646F.2d902(5thCir.1981). Inm ates who challenge their guilty pleas on collateral review m ust overcom e a tsstrong presum ption of verity''accorded disolem n declarations''m ade in open court.See Blackledge v. Allison,43lU.S.63,73-74 (1977).Theymustalso overcomethepresumption ofregularity and tûgreatweight''accorded courtrecords.See United Statesv.Abreo,30F.3d29,32(5th Cir.1994) (holdingthatasigned,unambiguouspleaagreementkdisaccordedgreatevidentiaryweight''when determiningwhetherapleaisenteredvoluntarilyandknowinglyl;Bonvillianv.Blackburn,780F.2d 1248,1252 (5th Cir.1986)(holdingthatcourtrecordsaredcaccorded greatweighf'l;Websterv. Estelle,505 F.2d 926,929-30 (5th Cir. 1974)(holding thatcourtrecords 'iare entitled to a presumptionofregularity''). ()H?a*()ï32N18h14)18ï&'l8-()6)6()d(1lsvpd O n August23,2017,Felan appeared in open courtand entered a plea ofguilty. The court adm onished Felan asto the natureofthe offense charged --evading arrestordetention on April30, 2017 -- and the punishm ent range. A review of the tsplea M em orandum ,'' show s that Felan consented to an oralstipulation ofthe evidence and testim ony.A fterstating thathe understood the proceedingsin the case,Felan confessed underoath thatthe allegationscontained in theindictm ent weretrueandcorrect.(D.E.11-2,pp.80-81).Felanstatedthatthetrialcourthadmadetherequired adm onishm ents and thathe (lunderstandsthe adm onishm entsand is aw are ofthe consequences of (hislplea.''1d.at80.HestatedthathewasClenteringghisjpleafreelyandvoluntarilywithoutany threatsorcoercion''and thattherehad notbeen anyprom ise m adeto induce him to plead which w as notrevealedtothecourt.1d.Hewaivedhisrighttotrialbyjuryon both guiltand punishmentin w riting in open coul't. 1d. at 81. Finally, he stated that he w as kstotally satisfied w ith the representation given by ghislattorney in thiscase,and ghelwas provided fglly effective and com petent representation.''1d. at 80.Felan acknow ledged through his signature,the follow ing statem entin the Plea M em orandum :$iIhave read thisPLEA M EM O RAN D U M ,including Exhibit A (theadmonishmentsland anyattachments,understand al1theinformationin it,am waivingthe rights as stated in it,and swearthata11the allegations offactcontained in itare true and correct.'' Id at83. ThetrialcourtjudgeadmonishedFelan inwritingin opencourtthathewaspleadingguilty to ûiEvading A rrest/lletention w/ Previous Conviction,''a second-degree felony punishable by ttim prisonm entin the TexasD epartm entofCrim inalJustice forany term ofnotm ore than 20 years orlessthan 2 years,and in addition,afinemay be assessed notto exceed $10,000.''ld at84.The judgealsoadmonishedFelan: O TUAOïKMHàZII!8h'18-()(l6t)d(11Nspd The recom m endation oftheprosecuting attorney asto punishm entis notbinding on the coul't.TheCoul' tw illinquire asto the existence of aplea bargain agreem entbetw een the State and the defendantand,if an agreem entexists,the Coul' tw illinform the defendantwhetherthe Courtwillfollow orrejecttheagreementinopencourtandbeforeany findingontheplea.ShouldtheCourtrejectanysuchagreement,then the defendantw illbe perm itted to w ithdraw the defendant'splea of guilty ornolo contendere. 1d.at85. Inthe(lstate'sPunishm entRecom m endation,''acheckedbox indicatesthattheCdpunishm ent be assessed at:5 yearsin the lnstitutionalDivision ofthe Texas Departm entofCrim inalJustice.'' 1d.at79.Felan,hiscounsel,and the prosecuting attorney signed the agreem ent,agreeing thatttthe punishm ent recom m endation outlined above m ay be considered by the Courtw hen assessing punishm entin this cause.''1d. Thetrialjudgestated:ût-l-heCourtthenadmonishedDefendantasrequiredbylaw.Itappeared to the Court that D efendant w as m entally com petent to stand trial,m ade the plea freely and voluntarily,and w asaw areofthe consequencesofthisplea.''ld at88.Felan entered hisguilty plea voluntarily,and he understood the m axim um prison term and fine for the offense charged.Felan entered hisguilty plea afterreceiving these adm onishm ents.1d.kssolem n declarationsin open coul't carry a strong presum ption ofverity,''form ing a ttform idable barrierin any subsequentcollateral proceedings.''Unitedstatesv.Cervantes,132F.3d 1106,1110(5thCir.1998)(quotingBlackledge v.Allison,43lU.S.63,73-74(1977)).Felan'ssignatureindicatesthatheunderstoodthenatureof the charge against him and the consequence of his plea. These docum ents are entitled to a presumptionofregularityunder28U.S.C.j2254(e),andthisCourtaccordsevidentiaryweightto theseinstruments.Carterv.Collins,918F.2d 1198,1202n.4(5th Cir.1990). OnApril3,2018,thestatehabeascourtdeniedrelief.(D.E.11-2,p.4).TheTexasCourt of Crim inalAppeals also denied relief on Felan's claim for post-conviction relief. A state applicationthatisdenied withoutwritten orderby the TexasCourtofCrim inalAppeals,asin the presentcase,isanadjudication onthemerits.Singleton v.Johnson,178F.3d 381,384 (5th Cir. 1999). ,ExparteTorres,943S.W .2d469,472(Tex.Crim.App.1997)(holdingaçidenial''signifies anadjudicationonthemeritswhileadsdismissal''meanstheclaim wasdeclined on groundsother thanthemerits).Onhabeasreview,thefederalcourtsareboundbythecredibilitychoicesmadeby thestatecourt.Hoguev.Johnson,131F.3d466,505(5thCir.1997).Asafederalcoul' tinahabeas proceeding,thisCourtisrequired to grantapresum ption ofcorrectnessto a statecourt'sexplicitand implicittindingsoffactifsupportedbytherecord.foydv.Smith,899 F.2d 1416,1425(5th Cir. 1990). The state courtrecord fairly supports the explicitfinding thatFelan's statementwas voluntary. The record show s that Felan voluntarily entered a guilty plea after consulting w ith counsel. The state court's decision to deny reliefwasnotcontrary to clearly established federal1aw as determ ined by the Suprem e Courtofthe U nited States.Felan'sclaim forhabeasreliefbased on the involuntariness of his guilty plea lacks m erit, and relief cannot be granted. 28 U .S.C . j2254(d)(1). lV. The C laim oflneffective A ssistance of Counsel Felan claim sthathe did notknow ingly and voluntarily enterhisguilty plea because he did notreceive effective assistance ofcounsel. The longstanding test for determ ining the validity of a guilty plea is ûûw hether the plea represents a voluntary and intelligentchoice am ong the alternative courses of action open to the O yRAO' X MHQII18h'l8-41()6()d(11upd defendant.''NorthCarolinav.A/ord,400U.S.25,31(1970). ,seeBoykinv.Alabama,395U.S.238, 242(1969);Machibrodav.UnitedStates,368U.S.487,493 (1962). In Hillv.fockhart,474U.S.52(1985),theSupremeCourtheld thatthetwo-parttestset forthinStricklandv.Washington,466U.S.668(1984),appliestocasesinvolvingguiltypleas.To prevailonaclaim ofineffectiveassistanceofcounsel,apetitionermustshow that:(1)hiscounsel's actionsfellbelow an objective standard ofreasonableness' ,and (2)the ineffectiveassistanceof counselprejudicedhim.ld ;Moawadv.Anderson,143F.3d942,946(5thCir.1998).A courtmay resolve a claim by finding eitherthatcounselrendered reasonably effective assistance orthatthere wasalackofprejudice.Thereisnoneedtoreachbothcomponentsoftheinquiryifthedefendant makesan insufficientshowing on one.StricklanJ 466U .S.at697. In assessing the reasonableness ofcounsel'sperform ance,the Courtm ustindulge a strong presum ptionthattheperform ance fallsw ithinthedsw iderangeofreasonableprofessionalassistance'' and thatSkthechallenged action mightbe considered sound trialstrategy.'' StricklanJ 466 U.S.at Ifcounsel'saction is based on w ell-inform ed strategic decisions,it is ûiw ell within the range of practical choices not to be second-guessed.'' Rectorv.Johnson,120F.3d551,564(lgg7ltquotingWilkersonv.Collins,950F.2d1054,1065(5th ln thecontextofa guilty plea,prejudice ispresentifthere isreasonableprobability that absentcounsel'serrors,the defendantw ould nothaveentered a guilty plea and w ould haveinsisted onatrial.Unitedstatesv.Payne,99F.3d 1273,1282(5thCir.1996), .Mangum v.Hargett,67F.3d 80(5th Cir.1995),cert.denieJ 5l6U.S.1133 (1996).A reasonableprobability isaprobability sufticienttoundermineconfidencein theoutcome.StricklanJ 466 U .S.at694. O T-AOG MI-IQCI18h'l8-4)()66)d()lwpd 10 Because Felan pleaded guilty to the offense,the relevant inquiry is whether counsel's perform ance interfered w ith Felan'sability to understand the nature ofthe chargesagainsthim and theconsequencesofhisplea.Onceaguiltypleahasbeenentered,nonjurisdictionaldefectsinthe proceedings against the defendant are w aived, including all claim s of ineffective assistance of counselexceptinsofarasthe alleged ineffectivenessrelates to the voluntariness ofthe guilty plea. Smithv.Estelle,711F.2d677,682(5thCir.),cert.deniedsubnom.Smithv.McKaskle,466U.S. 906(1984). Felan claim s that his counselnever told him aboutthe eonsequences of his guilty plea. Respondent'ssummaryjudgmentevidenceshowsthatFelan stated,in court,in writing,thathe understood the trialcourt'sadm onishm ents;fully understood the consequencesofhis guilty plea; and freely and voluntarily pleaded guilty. Felan also stated, in court, in w riting, that he had discussed the contentsofthecourt'swritten adm onishm entsw ith hisattorney and understood them , and hew assatisfiedw iththerepresentationtrialcounselhadprovided.Thesedocum entsareentitled toapresumptionofregularityunder28U.S.C.j2254(e),andthisCourtaccordsevidential' yweight totheseinstruments.Carterv.Collins,918F.2d 1l98,1202n.4(5th Cir.1990). FelanhasnotsatisfiedtheprejudiceprongofStricklandbzszàonthedefieiencieshealleges in counsel'sperform ance. Felan hasfailed to show thatthere w as a reasonable probability thatbut forhis alleged unprofessionalerrors,Felan w ould nothave entered a guilty plea. Felan received a five-yearprison term w hen he pleaded guilty. Felan has notshow n thathe w ould have insisted on a trial,w hich exposed him to a prison sentence ranging from two to tw enty years. ln the eventof atrial,ajul'ywouldhavelearned aboutFelan'slengthycriminalhistory,includingconvictionsfor O SRAOhKMIAZI)l8hvl8.. (1()66)d()IA&pd 11 burglaryofabuildingin 1997,possessionofacontrolled substancein2001,and aggravatedrobbery in 2003. On habeasreview ,the statetrialcourtfound thatFelanhad voluntarily entered hisguiltyplea. The TexasCourtofCrim inalAppealsdenied habeasrelief.The state court'sdecision to deny relief wasnotcontrary to clearly established federallaw asdeterm ined by the Suprem eCourtoftheU nited States.28U.S.C.j2254(d)(1).Felan'sclaim forhabeasreliefbasedontheineffectiveassistance ofcounsellacksm erit. V. The Claim sW aived by the G uilty Plea (Grounds2& 3) Ingroundtwo,Felancontends,ltApplicantwasharm gsiclbyatrialcoul'thasnodiscretion to determ ine whatthe 1aw is orin applying the law to the facts and consequently the trialcourt's failure to analyze or apply the law correctly is an abuse of discretion.'' ln his state habeas application,Felan breakstheclaim down intotwodistinctarguments:(1)therewasinsufticient evidencetosupportafindingofguiltand (2)thetrialcourterredin denyinghisrequestforajury instructiononthelesserincludedoffenseoftûtleeingorattemptingtoeludeapeaceofficer.''(D.E. 11-2,pp.26-32).Byenteringaguiltyplea,Felanwaivedhisjuryinstructionclaim,andanyclaim based on the trialcourt's errorin applying the law to the factsofhis case. lt is w ell established that a know ing and voluntary guilty plea is conclusive as to a defendant'sguiltand waivesallnonjurisdictionaldefectsin theproceedingsprecedingtheplea, including constitutionalones,that do notim plicate the voluntariness ofthe guilty plea.Tollettv. Henderson,411U.S.258,267(1973).BecauseFelan'sguiltypleawasvoluntarilyandknowingly made,Felan'sconstitutionalclaimsarewaived.SeeParkev.Raley,506U.S.20,29(1992), .United Statesv.Broce,395U.S.563,569-70(1989))UnitedStatesv.Boykin,395U.S.238,243(1969). In ground 3,Felancontendsthattheevidencew asinsufticientto supporthisconviction.This claim waswaivedbyFelan'svoluntaryguiltyplea.SeeKelleyv.Alabama,636F.2d 1082,1083(5th Cir.1981)(apetitionerwhopleadsguiltywaivestherighttochallengethesufficiencyandreliability oftheevidence,becausetheguiltypleaitselfstandsasevidenceagainstthepetitioner).û$Nofederal constitutional issue is raised by the failure of the Texas state coul'tto require evidence of guilt corroboratingavoluntaryplea.''Smithv.M ccotter,786F.2d697,702(5th Cir.1986).M oreover, underTexasstate law,ajudicialconfession issufficientevidence ofguiltin a casein which a defendantentersaguilty plea.SeeMenefee v.State,287 S.W .3d 9,13 (Tex.Crim.App.2009). Felan signedajudicialconfession inwhichheadmittedtocommittingtheoffehse.(D.E.15-3,p. 36).Theevidencewasthereforesufficienttosupporttheconviction.Felanhasnotshownthatthe statecourt'srejectionofthisclaim wasunreasonable. V l. The State H abeas C ourtE rror Claim (Ground 4) ln hisfourth ground,Felan allegesthattheTexasCoul' tofCrim inalAppealsSddid notansw er themix gsicjquestionsoflaw.''(D.E.l,p.7). Therecord showsthatFelan did notappealhis conviction,and did notfile a petition for discretionary review w ith the Texas CourtofCrim inal Appeals. Felan did, however, file an application for state post-conviction relief that w as subsequently denied bytheTexasCoul'tofCrim inalAppeals.Felan'sclaim ispredicated on an error in state habeasproceedings. O' AAOtKMI-IQtI18$vl841()6()dt)lB'pd The infirm ities in state habeas proceedings on habeas review that Felan alleges do not constitutegroundsforhabeasreliefinfederalcourt.Trevinov.Johnson,168F.3d173,180(5thCir. 1999)* ,Hallmarkv.Johnson,118F.3d1073,1080(5thCir.),cert.denied,118S.Ct.576(1997))see Nicholsv.Scott,69F.3d 1255,1275(5th Cir.l995)(1ûAnattackon astatehabeasproceedingdoes notentitlethe petitionerto habeasreliefin respectto hisconviction,asitisan attackon aproceeding collateraltothedetentionandnotthedetentionitself.''l;Morrisv.Cain,186F.3d581,585n.6(5th Cir.1999).Felanhasnotassertedanerrorinthestatehabeasproceedingaffectingthedeferencedue the state court'sfindingsin thehabeasproceedings.Felan hasnotshow n abasisforgrantinghabeas relief. VIl. Felan's M otion for Leave to A m end Afterrespondenttiledamotionforsummaryjudgment,Felanrequestedleavetoamendhis petition. The m otion w illbe denied forreasons stated briefly below . M otionstoamendahabeascorpuspetitionaregovernedbyRule15(a)oftheFederalRules ofCivilProcedure.28U.S.C.j2242(anapplicationforwritofhabeascorpusSimaybeamendedor supplementedasprovided intherulesofprocedureapplicabletocivilactions.''). UnderFederal RuleofCivilProcedure 15(a),apartymayamend hispleadingsonceasamatterofcourseatany tim e before a responsive pleading is served.ln the present case,respondent tiled a m otion for summaryjudgment,respondingtothepetition.(DE.10).Accordingly,leaveofcourtisrequired. Fed.R.Civ.P.l5(a)(2). UnderFederalRule ofCivilProcedure 15(a)(2),applicablehere,aparty may amend his pleading only w ith leave of court.The rule providesthatthe iscoul'tshould freely give leave w hen justicesorequires.''Fed.R.Civ.P.l5.W heretheproposedamendmentwouldbefutile,however, ()MèAO= 0f82(31@Lvt%RJ$#G$1:491NN';Kl denialofthe motion forleave to amend isappropriate.See Foman v.Davis,371 U.S.178,182 (1962), .Stri pling v.JordanProd.Co.,LLC,234F.3d 863,873(5th Cir.2000). Thedenialofan opportunity to am end isw ithin the discretion ofthe D istrictCourt.1d. ln thiscase,the Courtdoes notfindjusticerequiresthatFelanbeallowedtoamendhispleading.Here,Felanfailstoprovide the Courtw ith any proposed am endm entsordescribe the untim ely inform ation he w ishesto add to his petition forhabeas corpus.Regardless,an am endm entor supplem entis notnecessary to reach a decision on the m erits ofhisclaim s. TheCourt'sreview under28U.S.C.j2254 islimitedtotherecordinthestatecourtthat adjudicatedtheclaim onthemerits.Cullen v,Pinholster,563U.S.170,182 (2011)(ûûltwouldbe contrarytogj2254's1purposetoallow apetitionertoovercomeanadversestate-courtdecisionwith new evidence introduced in a federalhabeascourtand review ed by thatcourtin the firstinstance effectivelydent?v(?.'').TheCourttindsthatanyadditionalinformationthatFelanseekstoinclude in his petition is untim ely and notnecessary to evaluate the m erits ofhis claim s.The Courtw ill review allofFelan's argum ents and the relevantlegalauthority,regardless ofw hetherhe m ovides additionalam endm entsto hispetition.M oreover,Felan has failed to describe w ith specificity any additionalevidence thatw ould behelpfulto the Coul' tin deciding them erits ofthehabeaspetition. Therefore,Felan'sM otionforLeavetoAmendisdenied.(D.E.12). V IIl. Conclusion Respondent'sM otionforSummaryJudgmentisGRANTED.(D.E.10).Felan'spetitionfor a w rit of habeas corpus is D EN IED . This case is D ISM ISSED . Felan's m otion to am end is DENIED.(D.E.12).AnyremainingpendingmotionsareDENIED asmoot. O.'tRAOtKMl1t2IIl8h'l8-t)()6()dt)lw'pd The Suprem e Courthas stated thatthe show ing necessary fora C ertificate ofAppealability isasubstantialshow ing ofthe denialofa constitutionalright.H ernandezv.Johnson,213 F.3d 243, 248(5th Cir.2000)(citingSlackv.McDaniel,529U.S.473,483-84(2000)).Underthatstandard, an applicantm akesa substantialshow ing when he dem onstratesthathisapplication involvesissues thataredebatableamongjuristsofreason,thatanothercourtcouldresolvetheissuesdifferently,or that the issues are suitable enough to deserve encouragem ent to proceed further. See Clark v. Johnson,202 F.3d 760,763 (5th Cir.2000). W here a districtcourthasrejected a prisoner's constitutionalclaimsonthemerits,theapplicantmustdemonstratethatreasonablejuristswouldtind thedistrictcourt'sassessm entoftheconstitutionalclaimsdebatableorwrong.Slack 529U.S.484. This Court denies Felan's petition after careful consideration of the m erits of his constitutionalclaim s.ThisCourtdeniesa COA because Felan hasnotm adethe necessary show ing forissuance. A ccordingly,a certificate of appealability isD EN IED . SIGNEDatVictoria,Texas,on . J-, kk. e,. l a- J<-, '2019. KEN N ETH M .H O Y UN ITED STA TES DISTRICT JU D G E ()tRA(lhF:sl11h24118ï:'l%R)()6()d(1l:5:)d
]]>
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.
