United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
LENNIS A. GEORGE
ORDER AND REASONS
the Court is the pro se petition of Lennis A. George
(“Petitioner”) for issuance of a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Rec. Doc. 3 at 1.
The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation
(“Report”), advising dismissal of
Petitioner's writ of habeas relief with prejudice. Rec.
Doc. 30 at 1. On September 8, 2017, Petitioner timely filed
objections, requesting the Court reject the Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation. Rec. Doc. 33 at 1.
reasons enumerated below, IT IS ORDERED that
the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is
ADOPTED; Petitioner's objections are
OVERRULED; and the instant habeas corpus
petition is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
request for habeas relief arises out of Petitioner's
incarceration at the Dixon Correctional Institute
(“Dixon”) in Jackson, Louisiana. His conviction
and sentence are based on the following: Lennis A. George saw
the victim driving her vehicle on the highway and requested
her to pull her vehicle over for them to speak. Rec. Doc. 30
at 8. The victim refused and Petitioner then began to ram her
vehicle off the road. Id. The victim pulled her
vehicle over and got out. Id. Petitioner approached
her, stabbing her repeatedly with a small knife. Id.
After bystanders attempted to stop Petitioner from attacking
the victim, Petitioner fled the scene. Id.
21, 2010, a state district court jury convicted Petitioner of
attempted manslaughter under Louisiana law. Rec. Doc. 3 at 1
(referring to La. Rev. Stat. Title 14 §§ 27 and
31). On August 27, 2010, the court sentenced Petitioner as a
fourth offender to serve a term of thirty-five years of
imprisonment. Rec. Doc. 3 at 1. The Louisiana Fourth Circuit
Court of Appeal affirmed Petitioner's conviction and
then, on February 17, 2012, the Louisiana Supreme Court
denied his related writ of review. Rec. Doc. 3 at 2. On July
3, 2013, Petitioner filed a supplemental memorandum to the
state district court in support of his post-conviction
application, in which the state district court denied. State
Rec., Vol. 7 of 7; Rec. Doc. 3 at 6. The Louisiana Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeal denied Petitioner's related writ
applications for review of the state district court's
denial of his post-conviction relief (State v. George, No.
2015-K-0213 (La.App. 4th Cir. Mar. 16, 2015); State Rec.,
Vol. 7 of 7); and the Louisiana Supreme Court did likewise on
January 25, 2016. State Rec., Vol. 7 of 7.
March 4, 2016, Petitioner filed the instant federal habeas
corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Rec. Doc. 3. The
state filed a response, arguing that the court should deny
Petitioner's habeas application because Petitioner failed
to submit his state district court application for
post-conviction relief before the May 17, 2013, deadline for
filing such claim. Rec. Doc. 15 at 7. Petitioner responded by
amending his habeas application to include documentation that
he mailed his habeas application to the state district court,
supporting his contention he timely filed his habeas
application to the state district court. Rec. Doc. 16. In
turn, the state filed two responses, one addressing
Petitioner's alleged supporting documents (Rec. Doc. 20)
and another discussing the merits of Petitioner's
underlying habeas claims (Rec. Doc. 27).
Magistrate Judge found that Petitioner timely filed his
post-conviction application to the state district court,
despite the court not receiving it, because Petitioner timely
mailed his application. Rec. Doc. 30 at 4. The Magistrate
Judge then noted that Petitioner diligently pursued his
application by seeking post-conviction relief at both the
state and federal level. Id. at 7. The record and
law support finding the one-year period of limitation for
filing a federal application for habeas corpus had tolled and
Petitioner's application was filed timely. Id.
analyzing Petitioner's substantive claims, the Magistrate
Judge separated Petitioner's claims based on whether the
state courts heard the claims on direct or collateral review.
Rec. Doc. 30 at 9. Direct review claims are Petitioner's
claims denied on their merits by the state court on direct
appeal; those claims are as follows:
1. Intention to Kill (Rec. Doc. 3-2 at 15.)
2. “Other Crimes” Evidence
(Id. at 16.)
3. Mistrial (Id. at 18.)
4. 24-Hour Delay (Id. at 18.)