Opinion
No. 4:01-CV-0645-A
April 23, 2002
ORDER
Came on for consideration the above-captioned action wherein James Merlin Justice is petitioner and Janie Cockrell, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, is respondent. This is a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On March 12, 2002, the United States Magistrate Judge issued his findings, conclusions, and recommendation and ordered that the parties be granted until April 2, 2002, in which to file, and not merely place in the mail, written objections thereto. By order signed March 27, 2002, the court granted petitioner an extension of time until April 19, 2002, in which to file his objections. On April 2, 2002, petitioner filed written objections to the Magistrate Judge's findings, conclusions and recommendation On April 19, 2002, he filed his amended objections, which the court has considered as a supplement to the original objections (even though the amended objections are subject to being stricken as they are not accompanied by a proper certificate of service reflecting service on respondent). The court has reviewed the record de novo and finds that the petition must be denied.
Petitioner's objections misleadingly suggest that he was sent directly from boot camp to a ten-year term of incarceration in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice without due process. The record belies this description. Petitioner admits that he got into trouble at boot camp by "messing with the candy machine . . . by sticking his arm in the food pick-up slot." Pet'r's Objections at 2. Petitioner was given a hearing that met due process requirements. Subsequently, the judge of the 213th Judicial District Court of Tarrant County, Texas, reviewed his boot camp record and ordered him to be transferred to the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice to serve the remainder of his sentence because of his failure to have successfully completed boot camp. Petitioner had been brought to the Tarrant County Jail while the review was completed and was available in case the judge needed any further information.
Petitioner seems to argue that he could not possibly have been guilty of theft because "[t]hese Tom's Vending Machines have very effectively designed shields made to prevent a person from reaching there [sic] arm up to the products." Pet'r's Objections at 2. That the machine was impenetrable does not relieve petitioner of liability for the attempted theft.
The court ORDERS that the petition in this action be, and is hereby, denied.
FINAL JUDGMENT
In accordance with the court's order of even date herewith,
The court ORDERS, ADJUDGES and DECREES that the petition of James Merlin Justice for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 be, and is hereby, denied.