Opinion
Civil Action No. 4:04-CV-0324-A, (Consolidated with Civil Action No. 4:04-CV-325-Y).
August 9, 2004
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND NOTICE AND ORDER
This cause of action was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), as implemented by an order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge are as follows:
I. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS A. NATURE OF THE CASE
This is a petition for writ of habeas corpus by a state prisoner under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
B. PARTIES
Petitioner David Wesley Bynumn, TDCJ # 1072161, is in custody of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, in Navasota, Texas.
Respondent Douglas Dretke is the Director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.
C. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On November 2, 2001, pursuant to plea agreements, Bynumn pled guilty to two instances of felony driving while intoxicated in cause nos. 8355 and 8372 in the 355th Judicial District Court of Hood County, Texas, and was sentenced to twenty-five years' confinement in each case. (1State Habeas R. at 31-33; 2State Habeas R. at 29-31.) Bynumn did not directly appeal his convictions or sentences. (Federal Petition at 3.) On December 19, 2003, Bynumn filed two applications for writ of habeas corpus in state court, one for each conviction, raising the issues presented, which were denied without written order by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals on January 28, 2004. Ex parte Bynumn, Application Nos. 58,050-01 58,050-02, at cover. Thereafter, Bynumn filed two federal petitions for writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, on April 25, 2004. The actions were consolidated by order dated June 4, 2004. Dretke has filed an answer and documentary exhibits, to which Bynumn has not timely replied.D. ISSUES
Bynumn raises two grounds for relief in which he asserts that he was denied effective assistance of counsel and that his pleas were involuntary. (Federal Petition at 7.)
E. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
Dretke argues, among other things, that Bynumn's federal petition for writ of habeas corpus should be dismissed with prejudice because his claims are time-barred. (Resp't Answer 5-8.) The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (the AEDPA) imposes a one-year statute of limitations for filing a petition for federal habeas corpus relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Section 2244(d) provides:
(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 period 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 retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or
(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.
(2) The time during which a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending shall not be counted toward any period of limitation under this subsection.Id. § 2244(d)(1)-(2).
Because Bynumn is attacking his 2001 convictions, subsection (A) governs when the limitations period in this case began to run, viz., the date on which the judgments of conviction became final by the expiration of the time for seeking direct review., For purposes of this provision, the original judgments of conviction became final and the one-year limitations period began to run upon expiration of the time that Bynumn had for filing timely notices of appeal on December 2, 2001, and closed one year later on December 2, 2002, absent any tolling. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2; Flanagan v. Johnson, 154 F.3d 196, 200-02 (5th Cir. 1998). Bynumn's state habeas applications, filed on December 19, 2003 after limitations had already expired, did not operate to toll the federal limitations period under § 2244(d)(2). See Scott v. Johnson, 227 F.3d 260, 263 (5th Cir. 2000). Thus, Bynumn's federal petition filed on April 25, 2004, was filed beyond the limitations period and is, therefore, untimely.
Bynumn appears to be challenging the original judgments of conviction, and not the nunc pro tunc judgments entered on November 8, 2001 in each cause and/or the amended nunc pro tunc judgment entered on August 12, 2002 in cause no. 8372. Even if Bynumn were challenging one or more of the judgments nunc pro tunc, his petition would still be untimely.
There are no allegations that the state imposed an unconstitutional impediment to the filing of Bynumn's petition for federal relief, that the Supreme Court has announced a new rule(s) applicable to Bynumn's claims, or that the factual predicate of his claims could not have been discovered sooner through the exercise of due diligence. Therefore, the statutory exceptions embodied in § 2244(d)(1)(B)-(C) do not apply.
Bynumn did not reply to Dretke's answer or otherwise assert justification for his failure to timely file his federal habeas corpus petition, and the record reveals none. Therefore, this is not a case where the petitioner should benefit from equitable tolling, which is available only in rare and exceptional circumstances when an extraordinary factor beyond the petitioner's control prevents him from filing in a timely manner. See Davis v. Johnson, 158 F.3d 806, 811 (5th Cir. 1998).
II. RECOMMENDATION
Bynumn's petition for writ of habeas corpus should be dismissed with prejudice as time-barred.III. NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT TO PROPOSED FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION AND CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO OBJECT
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), each party to this action has the right to serve and file specific written objections in the United States District Court to the United States Magistrate Judge's proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation within ten (10) days after the party has been served with a copy of this document. The court is extending the deadline within which to file specific written objections to the United States Magistrate Judge's proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation until August 30, 2004. The United States District Judge need only make a de novo determination of those portions of the United States Magistrate Judge's proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation to which specific objection is timely made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(B)(1). Failure to file by the date stated above a specific written objection to a proposed factual finding or legal conclusion will bar a party, except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice, from attacking on appeal any such proposed factual finding or legal conclusion accepted by the United States District Judge. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc op. on reh'g); Carter v. Collins, 918 F.2d 1198, 1203 (5th Cir. 1990).IV. ORDER
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636, it is ORDERED that each party is granted until August 30, 2004, to serve and file written objections to the United States Magistrate Judge's proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation. It is further ORDERED that if objections are filed and the opposing party chooses to file a response, a response shall be filed within seven (7) days of the filing date of the objections.
It is further ORDERED that the above-styled and numbered action, previously referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for findings, conclusions, and recommendation, be and hereby is returned to the docket of the United States District Judge.