Court Opinion

ID: 4038143
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-09-28 21:47:04.723899+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:28:12.329859
License: Public Domain

^ Ufo^tjjfo -fj>0 AffltJtoof U.S.
                                         JAN 05 2015
                                      AbelAcosta,aerk

                    V.

            H^M\M Cb>uokA ,i£Xj\S>

            * ^* ^.4sMlo o ^ ^ r *

«a£-l oP l£.                       c^XctiL
^\kL-cX Cxn^ZJ^h                  .                          L

(\^AA\MVejo4^.. _ .                -     4^
^4v^KoJ^ Ofrr£su££ 7o1&^?a>x.... -.,.<3l/l>.
AaNAHlA^y.          . .     _.....    .. Lp.

      • *&c_(k}            ._...._ -1              ....,.- 7.
        ^^.(h.V__ .'              ._._.-.:'.                7.
        Cx)M^4aLoi? Uoo(k).,_                  .        '.__ 2.

         £n:.)wuv*fe£ ^ lf\uo(k\_,                       .. //.
Ca\oc\i&\o&.:.         . _... _          , .                 //.

CzJl£$c*lc OT 5«u?c^....-.:           ._ .                   O,

                         •i.
M-3\.o^(^^.?£AjAic^cl£:^;.- 7:7- _7'7. 7:.-. ;.-<3.
&e7 Cb&) LXuAeA &tes GsjoS-Wot\!o>o of fttAO&ft .;.:...•v. ;: <£
M^.4£l) UL&.C-. ft..,_..; . _.-                               A
iV^..ia.0\(i)^)E ATc^lE^OOAi^'te^CAAD ?XD

 fifiC.^LJ?4^o^£L^di£jf?oc^ aPAo6 Q2sdasr l^akfe A-/

           ^ (X)^4*>ua OF Ca&l(s)

4W.S^rJ!c£, x^oo&Sflfl72.77 Am?! 1&,3o\^I&DI^l
*bkj h^dc^X&'PX' UkulHkoDiau^ k^?W?^A
&£. a uojoAIa a^A -tooo Ai\u$ uiUY\ 4uoo A?f(7^oof

(kcc: ^So^C vl ts^^diK^c^7e^^^ Pc4r £5\Jf\ O^o^St|3^4^C^^^3-^7)
M^as&UkA V\c(xU7 foAfe^U, &^4m& A|/\o/pv 'hftllart
(TcA)oo ty£\ vo^,WA4 o->c*                 )^4-uuO^A-\ A+

   :IW^\£q*,\ 9?oi^k' Jn^uA kA?o tou^u ,AMi£
  r
                            A^RlAa

o^VSck Geao&fck*toX 4U,S& Av^ l*^ ^UJcUulk'
o?ck4W> eo&cocVV. %4?4?oiJQe. coofoock-^fi. A*ckocOo"
 tou°£xO -to k <^jjjacl'£j^k-,:juee) f-0 agcobcIaiOcc -/b

 . -tWsS CJjCOt
l^W& G^^P n' *•»-»« *«" r/™-^-S«taV;^ ^cc^^u
^?£^3 ^A^AeoA^I:?c^o (AyWX lAu ScoAe^ ?Afc(7
  HT^-Ti TTOJOQk KU££& -mMr-TK^ i/O -tUJUCT»c

^top?A7vx ^rAtoAAcxA Au^-fo 47\L, eXCjEXSSoL, AMOUNT
9^#AALa.
 A?  co11a-Wa (jv4taA(A) A7 4-U£^ »
fooO oU\rAA ?&o'"f DtoC6^(UrAil^i£A
An?A o^o^-feAv^ccsKiNAiA^o^ o4AyAc^oWA)5^&A->
    Glx4;W^?o0^4Wl- pdA?ok££- a;^ ^Oftllcl cleu^ uTdfzd
^&tav4 (_aosA JOumAe ^teA^t^Ajf^A)7o^^-^Al,
o

    A?5lNOUMW^^                         A\£. OaAPoxX£
    A^^«   k   k.   m   _/k\:           V>

           &£A?c3o(a.) 1WI?cakA a^>o4£jk)A^AAibaW£-
   ^6©lDM2AA fvoA ^^&&k^u) oAAvoO Ka£ oc^ca'RitA) dut£.4o
   4o COOUvc^K^Cs^^KJo^n JtXleA 4o tooJae-f Ac4%^

A;' A#^?ojo 4o:p^^cku4oR^ &t\£^d ?ou?-fa4?»o-feAV>t
    ^ea4o ^^AAl te^x&s ^M^^&Atoto,
   ^ufi£.^A Uk A?&^Ao AA D?olf\4£A4U^7AAe^cl
  o
   ?^az£l kkxk ^aA<£&£ ^<2DVA>A?A£Jl4oA\^ciflwJo?A?jjcv
   C^cxA'^ A^&cJUXTo/J A A fie>u\A WuS ^LA^O/kAlolcX
  'tovAvcA Av£_ Ae^A&Tojo *o^° 4a Ae4^£M?aJ^ (AkAAiA
  4ta_kllopiA aalU-hjzAl w4kAAA<2^£mu
  ~k

  £o^sA, oA?oA ^.uw^ to-t?AA ujoA^(Sa^^oAlA
  £o^4?4A?oajA &AAo£^toc^^
  47A tA*A ?hja^A^fe\o\o^vA^Ao£a4^
 1k>MfeaAk^^

9ke^2A7A2l.                                  £L.d.lk3SL
o^S^oA U3sA A? \kWs> *joVdr?»Ja kbuA cd^X?^Au^nA. tap-l^AllAA,
         .-Dl .   ,.i\   ,Ci <„ r   \   ,_ io r? kA / /:
o
 » o   mofcdi dk^oA& \V)                       A^ok)
Aott- At&C&^0Ott\2^^^                       ?k) ILUj
^o(LA?£^&^A,4k> (\to csA^oA?io^e^t uk^34 .ko iz<£c4fA
"'^UHO^I^S. 47^ (^f\UeJkA (ffNoO Act O^DUJJC^L ^P&cA ?kA
 [\A\Ta?v£c//G uo\7A o£ Wb&ftS (^^OA^A7-(^^:. Q>d&($

       ^£^O^^Apnl?Ci\M-( CfflOfeAJtk 4A MAU(^7Ae             ,

C0Kp^rAk  GcAcGUJU^^
VUjoftPvA£~(^                    ^^aU W ockAuAAA
&4*kA€0£A <# ?aj\£AO ,\^a/t eA?c&, aoA'fcel?Azs£AsA-fo
l^4?Pa A^ ^omarfA^A^... c^WcaA-A,
•A^AaWAwvuA A?m^k^ ^(^AAb?(?4u Acco/d?^Au
^oXA I^^aAA ^AcA?a^A)^-^S A^L^^^fe")
    CAstiao*** iM-a/- &7/l-L(moc£ HAaotty -/k
%&AA4?4fak> Toe.A?^CJfe4^tOA^J T^U/tuD
A^£a^(\oc>/Aa;

 4k(^AA'^t^£A ux M^lfca&oodop^
 4ta $7aAA|1 Ac oWoDtSL %?\°\&^(Xtoa£&.
 (fim.LSaci,&^rACov&Aok uma*/ja4. '
 k^£&l& A£fe(ApOcAtAkk) UuO>AuA ?uJAcA
  liptA(LUujA£^4fvA7u^cf^3d tVvJU(A\
nAAA o^uAf\k>c^ To uoA A v& s"o
 U?niAa &poteA?fc4d.--£pA (oic£S ^
        £

7# ^     £

       CL ,CXCZ£         pAp0loKS.-
 I Hot); W 7^ k^A cA A&dA kaa^. aAaA iA_oA(?d?4u
 A£ju-& Ac^o^?jld1^-AAA. 6^kA)Oe^MCk;-ffe\ cA
 \£^&laW,A?A?/j^;4Wo AecA^A\Ai4?u^ Aa4^l
(£^ M^U \4?4^                                  %oceAufc
£te?Cfil Ck230O A AlOiO&.
      ^Woo(A.)4aQl?cA^AuveAdL ^x>AA& Aa44A.

AAA cxoUuoAA£Aaau^cmoJ-A AA^A/v/t^A A^a^lfmi

Nfx?^AA J? 4*?aL.«^A Afe A^^oc^akAau>1-^
^4^o^A\A t^£joAx£^ ^£4?cA££ Q^W^^oi^
-fo £jOW)cA' uAAx 4W_7ajo A\^cA A&aj&AA? acj&e-
^a>fcA(^^iA 4^^1-^j4 ^oA^^>^te5.^
 &-WfL°vjO uoAck UJk£o'4 0£OC^ wuA 4Wkfc£4ut££ -fo COKAU^C
 Au^pouoSA.MiokA..T^i^^^to^v A^.^kieS ii^^)'-fA
 cA 4Uf^ £^o S4AlA?ci/kA\ AjOO. Au£^pite££^£. J?£ lAAo^
 A7Av^^zsoAA?^os4Ae 02)aAvo£mAA?/o ^ajAAv^AaA
 Q&A.A A^ ffAiAA? A^t^^t -:«-Ae^upk),^cu?£xJ?m
 -S^-^a^DnA(A)XA. AAAStXiV eT)^^?laA^aAA^^
  otzA^AjpKCiA?c^Ak •feir&AL, ASAAacA aoAAAc^1
  WNAyAdjA^                              A;oA
 Cbu\^4-^Kcx\A^Sa£L,-foA^ coou?c4?juo^u'i24 /Q^u?xja Al
 lSAAaM£^^ ^A>/A UO$A K& ?AAA^ ^tfJUA^
      l^VxA kJAjcL c^u"A?oOk>^
 ^^\?oei^A^y sKaII A^AuJ'?(ykA^A AAjaAto?
<2>uJAC

 cAA?c^4?o^A^^

   AA?4?oO£i^ t^p^A^Allu o^a^Ao Wao^Ax1A^4?c^
AoGL A^a^OJOK^Uv^^O?£AjO'' Ctfi*o4£i£ *K4 W^o (\uA9.a3 £^l£4u9
         c^u^\A^Wk.4-o Aa^(^                           Aaix>£
         -to Ae£?NX^?uo& o£$&ek& a^A ccoJo&iJ o$ f&to
         A\i^ laAvI Akc^t-A^ >4\^^rc(k A. l^vo ^oAtu^Ac^.. -

                                     niutftiCgj&^nZ
                    (JlfO&lQcaU^ "STvA AfoAA?o/Q
  AcA^^AA ^u06f^u^d^£-iW^pejU^14uoA pAjaiku-k^
Av^cC*££o£>i        ^AA          k
                             J\ik>CA CSb^l&C:

     ^y^&j-Jte^ ^           ,-k^k HIV^mW. 3Q\U,            ?5>

                                        AA^CC^A

                                      ^uAA CM

   Al KopcAa iA kuA(4?o?^cAAAfr )o               ??

                                       tep^iA (la,

                                     'Eubflo CeAj'iaZ'

                                                    £„£./to£
?fea^lA<=^Ja-
                                                                                  mwa:

SHARON KELLER                                                                                       ABEL ACOSTA
 PRESIDING JUDGE                Court of Criminal Appeals                                                CLERK '
                                                                                                    . (512)463-1551
                                      P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION
LAWRENCE MEYERS
TOM PRICE
                                            AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711   - "                               SIAN SCHILHAB
PAUL WOMACK                                                                                         GENERAL COUNSEL
                                                                                                      (512)463-1600
CHERYL JOHNSON
MIKE KEASLER
BARBARA P. HERVEY
CATHY COCHRAN
ELSA ALCALA
 JUDGES

   November 25, 2014

   Rubin Crain IV #12023660
   Dallas County Bureau #2 W02
   P.O. Box 660334
   Dallas, TX 75266-0334

   RE: Trial Court Case #W12543       \8-y-.a^(iU&lA>^±cX <\V Kb. lO(^[2A:2>)
   Dear Mr. Crain:

   We are returning this writ application because it does not comply with Article 11.07, Section
   3(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

   A writ seeking relief from a final felony conviction under Code of Criminal Procedure Article
   11.07 must be on the prescribed form and must be filed with the District Clerk in the county of
   the conviction. The District Clerk will then prepare a record and transmit to the Court of
   Criminal Appeals.

                                                                         Sincerely

                                                                         Abel Acosta, Clerk

   AA/vj
          A> auloSGdc.oO (KjfljAkjA(2) k\ Vz&iM&C^cA CAS£_ KXj.
   Enclosure       * U^ia -sis i?- kAh) Sfo NixjDaJ^ycEJo^uOl^^bl Hl(A

                      Supreme Court Building, 201 West 14th Street, Room 106, Austin, Texas 78701
                                         Website www.cca.courts.state.tx.us

                                                                                                              tZ'.c.'tlcJB!
                                                           ^f^chWvao^a:?)
                   IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                         NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                                  DALLAS DIVISION

RUBIN CRAIN, IV,                           §
                                           §
                    Petitioner,            §
                                           §
V.                                         §          No. 3:14-cv-920-M-BN
                                           §
DALLAS COUNTY SHERIFF, ET AL.,             §
                                           §
                    Respondents.           §

      FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE
                    UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

       Petitioner Rubin Crain, IV has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. For the reasons explained below, the petition should be

construed as an application for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and

dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies.

                                     Background

       On August 4, 2012, Petitioner was convicted burglary of a building. Following

his conviction, he pleaded true to two felony enhancements. The jury found the

enhancement allegations true and assessed a ten-year sentence of imprisonment.

' Petitioner's conviction was affirmed on direct appeal, and his judgment was modified

to reflect the jury's findings of"true." See Crain v. State, No. 05-12-01219-CR, 2014 WL
357398 (Tex. App. - Dallas, Jan. 31, 2014, pet. refd). Petitioner has recently filed an

application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Texas Code of Criminal Procedure

article 11.07 that is currently pending before the state trial court.

                                           -1-

                                                                                   .6816 F.2d

220, 224 (5th Cir. 1987). Once an individual has been convicted and is confined on
                                                        i

authority of the criminal judgment, he may challenge the lawfulness of his conviction

and sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); see also, e.g.,

Williams v. O'Brien, No. 4:06-cv-834-Y, 2006 WL 3871924, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 4,

2006), rec. adopted, 2007 WL 60487 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 5, 2007); Branch v. Dretke, No.

3:03-cv-2607-H, 2004 WL 18.77798, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 20, 2004), rec. adopted, 2004

WL 1960192 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 2, 2004).

      Whether or not a petitioner seeks relief under Section 2241 or Section 2254, he

is required to fully exhaust available state remedies before submitting his federal

habeas petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A); Dickerson, 816 F.2d at 225. This entails

submitting the factual and legal basis of any claim to the highest available state court

                                          -2-

                                                                              *Z* c~. tt£
for review in a procedurally correct manner. See Satterwhite v. Lynaugh, 886 F.2d 90,

92-93 (5th Cir. 1989). In Texas, a prisoner must present his claims to the Texas Court

of Criminal Appeals in a petition for discretionary review or an application for writ of

habeas corpus. See Bautistav.McCotter, 793F.2dl09,110-11 (5th Cir. 1986). A federal

habeas petition that contains unexhausted claims must be dismissed in its entirety.

See id.; see also Thomas v. Collins, 919 F.2d 333, 334 (5th Cir. 1990).

                                       Analysis

      Petitioner's challenge to his 2012 conviction and sentence for burglary of a

building should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies.

When Petitioner filed this petition, his petition for discretionary review had not been

reviewed by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, and he had not filed an application

for habeas corpus relief under article 11.07. See Dkt. No. 5 at 3-4. His petition for

discretionary review has now been refused, see Crain v. State, PD-0321-14 (Tex. Crim.

App. July 23, 2014), but his 11.07 application is still pending before the state trial

court, see Dkt. No. 9; see also Ex parte Crain, No. W-1254318-A (filed Aug. 19, 2014).

Unless and until Petitioner fully exhausts his state remedies, he may not seek federal

habeas relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A); Thomas, 919 F.2d at 334; Dickerson, 816

F.2d at 225.

                                 Recommendation

      Petitioner's 28 U.S.C. § 2241 application should be construed as an application

for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The case should be dismissed

without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies.

                                          -3-

                                                                            £,C^ ^t^
                                                                         h^pA\iteutfac.
                       IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                       FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                                      DALLAS DIVISION

RUBIN CRAIN, IV,
          Petitioner,

                                                              3:14-CV-3711-L-BK

DALLAS COUNTY SHERIFF,                            §
         Respondents.                             §

                 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
                     OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

       Petitioner, a Dallas County jail inmate proceeding pro se, filed a federal habeas corpus

petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. which was automatically referred to the magistrate judge. See

28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Special Order 3. For the reasons that follow, it is recommended that the

petition be dismissed for failure to exhaust state court remedies.

                                       I. BACKGROUND

       On August 4, 2012, Petitioner was convicted of burglary of a building and was sentenced

to ten years' imprisonment. See State v. Crain, No. F12-54318 (Crim. Dist. Court No. 7, Dallas

County 2012), aff'd, No. 05-12-01219-CR, 2014 WL 357398 (Tex. App. - Dallas. Jan. 31. 2014.

pet, refd). On August 19, 2014, Petitioner filed an application for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 11.07. which is currently pending before

the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Exparte Crain, No. WR-49,450-04 (receivedby Texas

Court of Criminal Appeals Oct. 6, 2014). In his federal petition, filed October 16, 2014,

Petitioner alleges ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal. [Doc. 3 at 6-71. He

filed a prior federal petition, which was summarily dismissed for failure to exhaust state court

remedies. Crain v. Dallas County Sheriff. No. 3:14-CV-0920-M-BN. 2014 WL 4594523 (N.D.

Tex. Aug. 27. 2014). recommendation accepted, 2014 WL 4555662 (N.D. Tex. Sep. 12. 2014).

                                            Page 1 of 3
                                           II. ANALYSIS

         A state prisoner must exhaust all available state court remedies before a federal court will

consider the merits of his habeas claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b) and (c); Rhines v. Weber, 544

U.S. 269, 274 (2005). The exhaustion requirement is designed to "protect the state court's role

in the enforcement of federal law and prevent the disruption of state judicial proceedings." Rose

v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518 (1982). Exhaustion of state court remedies "is satisfied when the

substance of the federal habeas claim has been fairly presented to the highest state court."

Morris v. Dretke, 379 F.3d 199. 204 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting Mercadel v. Cain. 179 F.3d 271.

275 (5th Cir. 1999)). A Texas prisoner may satisfy that requirement by presenting both the

factual and legal substance of his claims to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in a petition for

discretionary review or in an application for a state writ of habeas corpus under Article 11.07 of

the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Whitehead v. Johnson, 157 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir.

1998).

         Petitioner has not satisfied the exhaustion requirement. A review of his petition and the

state courts' docket sheets (available online) confirms that his state habeas application is

presently pending before the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Because the Court of Criminal

Appeals has not yet had an opportunity to consider Petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of

counsel, they remain unexhausted.

                                             Page 2 of 3
                                   III. RECOMMENDATION

       For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the petition for writ of habeas corpus

be DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to exhaust state court remedies. See 28 U.S.C. §

2254(b) and (c).1

        SIGNED October 20, 2014.

                                                           HARRIS TOLIVER
                                                      rEEvSTAT-ES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

                            INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND
                         NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT

        A copy of this report and recommendation will be served on all parties in the manner
provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of this report and recommendation must file
specific written objections within 14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). In order to be specific, an objection must identify the specific
finding or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and
specify the place in the magistrate judge's report and recommendation where the disputed
determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the
briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file specific written objections will
bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the
magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district court, except upon grounds of plain
error. See Douglass v. United Services Automobile Ass k, 79 F.3d 1415. 1417 (5th Cir. 1996).

                                                           HARRIS TOLIVER
                                                           /STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1Petitioner is cautioned that the 1996 amendments to thehabeas corpus statute impose a
one-year statute of limitations for filing habeas corpus petitions in federal court, see 28 U.S.C. §
2244(d), and that this provision is applicable to this petition as well as to any other petition that
he may file in this court. Thus, Petitioner should act diligently and expediently if he intends to
seek habeas corpus relief in both state and federal court.

                                             Page 3 of 3