Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Brown v. Deville

United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Shreveport Division

April 2, 2017

ERIC K. BROWN
v.
WARDEN DEVILLE

          FOOTE JUDGE.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          HON. JOSEPH H. L. PEREZ-MONTES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         I. Background

         Before the Court is a motion for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by petitioner Eric K. Brown (“Brown”). In 2010, Brown was convicted pursuant to a guilty plea in the Louisiana First Judicial District Court in Caddo Parish, Louisiana, on one count of possession of over 400 grams of cocaine. Brown was sentenced to 30 years imprisonment at hard labor. State v. Brown. Brown is presently incarcerated in the Richwood Correctional Center in Monroe, Louisiana.

         In his Petition, Brown contends he was denied the effective assistance of pretrial counsel because: (1) Brown's trial counsel failed to investigate whether the State had proof to support the charge of possession of more than 400 grams of cocaine; and (2) Brown's trial counsel failed to review the video of Brown's aggravated flight. Brown argues that, but for his attorney's errors, he would not have pleaded guilty.

         The Respondent answered the complaint and raised the defense of untimeliness (Doc. 14). Brown filed a reply (Doc. 15). Brown's Petition is now before the Court for disposition.

         II. Scope of Review

         A. Rule 8(a) Resolution

         The Court is able to resolve this habeas corpus petition without the necessity of an evidentiary hearing because there is no genuine issue of material fact relevant to the petitioner's claims, and the state court records provide the required and adequate factual basis. See Moya v. Estelle, 696 F.2d 329, 332-33 (5th Cir. 1983); Easter v. Estelle, 609 F.2d 756, 761 (5th Cir. 1980); Habeas Corpus Rule 8(a).

         B, Standard of Review

         An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court shall be considered only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a).

         Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which is applicable to habeas petitions filed after its effective date on April 24, 1996, habeas relief is not available to a state prisoner with respect to a claim that was adjudicated on the merits in the State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim: (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding. Therefore, pure questions of law and mixed questions of law and fact are reviewed under § 2254(d)(1), and questions of fact are reviewed under § 2254(d)(2). See Martin v. Cain, 246 F.3d 471, 475-76 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. den., 534 U.S. 885 (2001).

         III. Law and Analysis

         A. Brown's habeas petition is untimely.

         The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, PL 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996) (“AEDPA”), provides a one-year period of limitation for filing applications for habeas relief at § 2244(d), as set forth below:

"(d)(1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The limitation shall run from the latest of-(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review;
(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application created by State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the applicant was prevented from filing by such State action;
(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.