United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Shreveport Division
MAURICE HICKS, JR. JUDGE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
H.L. PEREZ-MONTES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
the Court is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) filed by pro se
Petitioner Ashton Davis (“Davis”) (#630404).
Davis is an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department
of Corrections, incarcerated at the David Wade Correctional
Center in Homer, Louisiana. Davis challenges his conviction
and sentence imposed in the 26th Judicial District Court,
a review of Davis's pleadings and exhibits establishes
that Davis is not entitled to relief, his § 2254
Petition (Doc. 1) should be DENIED and DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254
Cases in The United States District Courts (“Rules
Governing § 2254 Cases”).
pleaded guilty to armed robbery with the use of a firearm. He
was sentenced to 30 years of imprisonment at hard labor.
(Doc. 1-2, p. 3). Davis filed an application for
post-conviction relief claiming that he received ineffective
assistance of counsel because he was not informed of a plea
deal that had been offered by the prosecution. (Doc. 1-2, p.
3). The application was denied, as were supervisory writs.
See State v. Davis, 2018-1447 (La. 5/6/19); 269
on the plea agreement under which Davis ultimately pleaded
guilty, it was agreed that Davis would receive no more than
35 years of imprisonment, and the State would not charge him
as a multiple offender. (Doc. 1-2, p. 3). Davis claims that
there had been a plea offer of 22 years that was not
presented to Davis by his attorney. (Doc. 1).
to correspondence by the prosecution to Davis's attorney,
the plea offer of 22 years of imprisonment was withdrawn
after Davis escaped from custody. (Doc. 1-2, p. 6).
Law and Analysis
Davis's Petition (Doc. 1) should be dismissed under
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254
of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases provides that,
following an examination of the pleadings by the Court,
“‘[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the
petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner
is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge
shall make an order for its summary dismissal and cause the
petitioner to be notified.'” See Kiser v.
Johnson, 163 F.3d 326, 328 (5th Cir. 1999) (quoting the
Rules Governing § 2254 Cases).
Davis cannot establish ineffective assistance of
of ineffective assistance of counsel are governed by the
guidelines established by the Supreme Court in Strickland
v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). The right to
effective assistance of counsel extends to the
plea-bargaining process. See Lafler v. Cooper, 566
U.S. 156, 162 (2012) (citing Missouri v. Frye, 566
U.S. 134, 132 (2012)). Successful challenges to guilty pleas
based on ineffective assistance of counsel must establish
that counsel's representation fell below an objective
standard of reasonableness and that the defendant was
prejudiced as a result. See Lafler, 566 U.S. at
162-63 (citing Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 57
“[i]n the context of pleas a defendant must show the
outcome of the plea process would have been different with
competent advice.” Id. at 163. If a petitioner
alleges that he would have accepted a plea but for the advice
of his counsel, then the petitioner must show that there is a
reasonable probability that: (1) “the plea offer would
have been presented to the court (i.e., that the defendant
would have accepted the plea and the prosecution would not
have withdrawn it in light of intervening
circumstances)”; (2) “the court would have
accepted its terms”; and (3) “the ...