Opinion
No. 4:04-CV-889-A.
March 21, 2005
ORDER
Came on for consideration the above-captioned action wherein Dedric D. Wilson is petitioner and Douglas Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, is respondent. This is a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On February 25, 2005, the United States Magistrate Judge issued his proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation, and ordered that the parties file objections, if any, thereto by March 18, 2005. On March 18, petitioner filed his written objections. Respondent has not made any further response. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court makes a de novo determination of those portions of the proposed findings or recommendations to which specific objection is made.United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667 (1980). The court is not addressing any nonspecific objections or any frivolous or conclusory objections. Battle v. United States Parole Comm'n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987).
The basis for all of petitioner's objections is that although he originally pleaded guilty, at his sentencing hearing he declared that he was innocent of the crime charged and that the trial judge should have withdrawn his guilty plea. The fact that petitioner proclaimed his innocence at the sentencing hearing does not establish his "actual innocence" for constitutional purposes. And, as for the allegations about his counsel's ineffectiveness, the transcript of the sentencing hearing belies petitioner's claims. The transcript makes plain that petitioner knew he was facing a minimum fifteen-year sentence, but wanted his counsel to ask for supervised probation anyway. Sept. 14, 2001, Tr. at 7-10. Petitioner knew that his counsel had been negotiating with the state, which had made an offer of thirty years' imprisonment. Id. at 9. For petitioner to claim that he had no idea he would be going to jail is absurd.
The court accepts the findings, conclusions and recommendation of the magistrate judge and ORDERS that the petition in this action be, and is hereby, denied.