Opinion
A-21-CV-713-RP
01-04-2022
DON ROBERTO BROWN, PETITIONER, v. BOBBY LUMPKIN, RESPONDENT.
ORDER
ROBERT PITMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Before the Court are Petitioner Don Roberto Brown's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Memorandum in Support (Document 1-2); Respondent's Answer (Document 9); and Petitioner's Reply (Document 13). Petitioner, proceeding pro se, was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies the petition.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A. Petitioner's Criminal History
According to Respondent, the Director has custody of Petitioner pursuant to a judgment and sentence of the 368th Judicial District Court of Williamson County, Texas. Petitioner was convicted of aggravated assault of a public servant with two prior felony enhancements. He was sentenced to 27 years' confinement.
Petitioner does not challenge his holding conviction. Rather, he challenges the denial of parole, because he expected to be released on parole as soon as he was “eligible.” Petitioner filed a state application for habeas corpus relief challenging this denial on March 10, 2021. On May 5, 2021, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied the application without written order on the findings of the trial court without a hearing and on its independent review of the record. See Ex parte Brown, Appl. No. 71, 353-05.
B. Petitioner's Grounds for Relief
Petitioner contends the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals abused its discretion when it incorrectly adopted the trial court's findings and conclusions of law. He also contends he was denied due process when the state violated statutory law mandating his eligibility to be released from prison. He admits he is not eligible for mandatory supervision.
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Petitioner's claim regarding the denial of parole is analyzed pursuant to the 1996 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). The Supreme Court has summarized the basic principles that have grown out of the Court's many cases interpreting the AEDPA. See Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 97-100 (2011). The Court noted that the starting point for any federal court in reviewing a state conviction is 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which states in part:
An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in 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.28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). The Court noted that “[b]y its terms § 2254(d) bars relitigation of any claim ‘adjudicated on the merits' in state court, subject only to the exceptions in §§ 2254(d)(1) and (d)(2).” Harrington, 562 U.S. at 98.
One of the issues Harrington resolved was “whether § 2254(d) applies when a state court's order is unaccompanied by an opinion explaining the reasons relief has been denied.” Id. Following all of the Courts of Appeals' decisions on this question, Harrington concluded that the deference due a state court decision under § 2554(d) “does not require that there be an opinion from the state court explaining the state court's reasoning.” Id. (citations omitted). The Court noted that it had previously concluded that “a state court need not cite nor even be aware of our cases under § 2254(d).” Id. (citing Early v. Packer, 537 U.S. 3, 8 (2002) (per curiam)). When the state court does not explain its decision, the habeas petitioner's burden is to show there was “no reasonable basis for the state court to deny relief.” Id. And even when a state court fails to state which of the elements in a multi-part claim it found insufficient, deference is still due to that decision, because “§ 2254(d) applies when a ‘claim,' not a component of one, has been adjudicated.” Id.
As Harrington noted, § 2254(d) permits the granting of federal habeas relief in only three circumstances: (1) when the earlier state court's decision “was contrary to” federal law then clearly established in the holdings of the Supreme Court; (2) when the earlier decision “involved an unreasonable application of” such law; or (3) when the decision “was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts” in light of the record before the state court. Id. at 100 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412 (2000)). The “contrary to” requirement “refers to the holdings, as opposed to the dicta, of . . . [the Supreme Court's] decisions as of the time of the relevant state-court decision.” Dowthitt v. Johnson, 230 F.3d 733, 740 (5th Cir. 2000) (quotation and citation omitted).
Under the “contrary to” clause, a federal habeas court may grant the writ if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by . . . [the Supreme Court] on a question of law or if the state court decides a case differently than . . . [the Supreme Court] has on a set of materially indistinguishable facts.Id. at 740-41 (quotation and citation omitted). Under the “unreasonable application” clause of § 2254(d)(1), a federal court may grant the writ “if the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle from . . . [the Supreme Court's] decisions but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the prisoner's case.” Id. at 741 (quotation and citation omitted). The provisions of § 2254(d)(2), which allow the granting of federal habeas relief when the state court made an “unreasonable determination of the facts, ” are limited by the terms of the next section of the statute, § 2254(e). That section states that a federal court must presume state court fact determinations to be correct, though a petitioner can rebut that presumption by clear and convincing evidence. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). But absent such a showing, the federal court must give deference to the state court's fact findings. Id.
Petitioner presented his claims regarding his parole denial in his state application for habeas corpus relief. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied Petitioner's application. Having independently reviewed the entire state court record, this Court finds nothing unreasonable in the state court's application of clearly established federal law or in the state court's determination of facts in light of the evidence.
The Constitution does not create a liberty interest in parole. Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal & Corr. Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 7 (1979). Likewise, Texas law makes parole discretionary and does not create a liberty interest in parole protected by the Due Process Clause. Orellana v. Kyle, 65 F.3d 29, 31-32 (5th Cir. 1995); see also Johnson v. Rodriguez, 110 F.3d 299, 308 (5th Cir. 1997). Because Texas inmates have no protected liberty interest in parole, they cannot have a liberty interest in parole consideration or other aspects of parole procedures. Id. at 308 (stating that Texas prisoners cannot mount a challenge against any state parole review procedure on procedural or substantive due process grounds). It is entirely up to each State whether it chooses to create a parole system and the amount of discretion with which it entrusts its parole decisionmakers.
Thus, parole is a privilege, not a right, even after an inmate accrues the minimum amount of time-served credit necessary to be eligible for parole. See Greenholtz, 442 U.S. at 7 (convicted persons have no constitutional right to be conditionally released before the expiration of a valid sentence); 37 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 145.3(1) (“Release to parole is a privilege, not an offender right, and the parole decision maker is vested with complete discretion to grant, or to deny parole release as defined by statutory law.”). An inmate who has met the minimum requirement for time served under the applicable parole eligibility statute is not automatically entitled to be released on parole; rather, he is only entitled to a review to determine whether or not he will be released on parole. See 37 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 145.3(1) (“[T]he parole decision maker is vested with complete discretion to grant, or to deny parole release....”) (emphasis added); Allison v. Kyle, 66 F.3d 71, 74 (5th Cir. 1995) (because a prisoner has no liberty interest in obtaining parole in Texas, he cannot complain of the constitutionality of procedural devices attendant to parole decisions). Because Plaintiff has no liberty interest in obtaining parole in Texas, he has no claim for violation of due process in the procedures attendant to his parole decisions. Orellana, 65 F.3d at 31.
Petitioner's claim that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals abused its discretion when it incorrectly adopted the trial court's findings and conclusions of law is not cognizable on habeas corpus review. Courts cannot grant habeas corpus relief to correct alleged errors in state habeas proceedings. See Trevino v. Johnson, 168 F.3d 173, 180 (5th Cir. 1999) (holding that habeas relief was not available for such alleged errors); see also Morris v. Cain, 186 F.3d 581, 585 n. 6 (5th Cir. 1999) (“errors in state postconviction proceedings will not, in and of themselves, entitle a Petitioner to federal habeas relief”); Hallmark v. Johnson, 118 F.3d 1073, 1080 (5th Cir. 1997) (“infirmities in state habeas [and other post-conviction] proceedings do not constitute grounds for relief in federal court”); see also Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991) (“[I]t is not the province of a federal habeas court to reexamine state-court determinations on state-law questions.”).
CONCLUSION
Having independently reviewed the entire state court record, this Court finds nothing unreasonable in the state court's application of clearly established federal law or in the state court's determination of facts in light of the evidence. To the extent Petitioner challenges alleged infirmities in his state habeas corpus proceedings his claims are not cognizable in this federal habeas corpus proceeding.
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
An appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from a final order in a habeas proceeding “unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). Pursuant to Rule 11 of the rules governing 2254 cases, the district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant. A certificate may issue only if a petitioner has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Id. § 2253(c)(2). In cases where a district court rejected a petitioner's constitutional claims on the merits, “the petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). “When a district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching the petitioner's underlying constitutional claim, a COA should issue when the petitioner shows, at least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Id.
In this case, reasonable jurists could not debate the dismissal or denial of the Petitioner's section 2254 petition on substantive or procedural grounds, nor find that the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003) (citing Slack, 529 U.S. at 484). Accordingly, the Court denies Petitioner a certificate of appealability.
It is therefore ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Petitioner Don Roberto Brown is DENIED.
It is further ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED and this case is CLOSED.