Edwards v. Stephens Director TDCJ-CID
Filing
23
Opinion and Order. For the reasons discussed, the Court DENIES Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and DENIES a certificate of appealability. (Ordered by Senior Judge Terry R Means on 5/9/2016) (trt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
BRIAN KEITH EDWARDS,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM STEPHENS, Director,
Texas Department of Criminal
Justice, Correctional
Institutions Division,
Respondent.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 4:15-CV-076-Y
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by petitioner, Brian Keith
Edwards, a state prisoner, against William Stephens, director of
the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division, Respondent.
After having considered the pleadings and relief sought by
Petitioner, the Court has concluded that the petition should be
denied.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In October 2010 Petitioner was indicted in the 29th Judicial
District Court, Palo Pinto County, Texas, Case No. 1299959D, for
felony driving while intoxicated (DWI). (Adm. R., Clerk’s R.37-38,
ECF No. 1-2.) The indictment also included a felony-enhancement
paragraph alleging a prior felony conviction for the same offense.
On May 6, 2011, a jury found Petitioner guilty, Petitioner pleaded
true to the sentence-enhancement allegation, and the jury assessed
his sentence at twenty years’ confinement and a $10,000 fine. (Id.
at 51-52.) Petitioner appealed his conviction, but the Eleventh
Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
(Id., Mem. Op., ECF No. 10-5.) Petitioner did not seek further
direct review. In July 2014 Petitioner filed a state habeas
application challenging his 2011 conviction, raising his claims
raised here, which was denied without written order by the Texas
Court of Criminal Appeals. (Id. Writ WR-82,234-01, cover & Action
Taken, ECF Nos. 10-24 & 10-21.) This federal habeas petition
followed.
The appellate court set out the facts of the case as follows:
Troopers Burt Blue and Travis Alewine observed
Appellant speeding; the radar reflected that Appellant
was driving 80 miles per hour. The speed limit was 60
miles per hour. The troopers made a U-turn, caught up to
Appellant’s vehicle, and activated the emergency lights
on their patrol car. Appellant pulled into the parking
lot of a small store. When Trooper Blue approached, he
detected the odor of alcohol coming from the car, and he
also smelled alcohol on Appellant when he talked to him.
Trooper Blue signaled to Trooper Alewine to indicate that
“somebody had been drinking in this car.” Trooper Blue
asked Appellant for his driver’s license and insurance,
but Appellant did not “have either one.” Trooper Blue
noticed that Appellant’s eyes were red and glazed and
that his speech was slurred. Appellant admitted that he
had drunk two 24–ounce beers. Additionally, when asked to
step out of his vehicle, Appellant was “unsteady on his
feet.” Appellant refused to participate in any field
sobriety tests, including tests on his eyes that he could
perform while lying down, because of a knee injury.
Appellant was arrested for driving while intoxicated and
transported to the local hospital to have his blood
drawn. A medical technologist drew the blood, and a
forensic scientist later determined that Appellant’s
2
blood alcohol concentration was 0.12.
(Id., Mem. Op. 2, ECF No. 10-5.)
II. ISSUES
In one ground for relief, Petitioner claims that the blood
draw was illegally taken without his consent or a warrant pursuant
to § 724.012(b)(3)(B),1 due to his prior DWI convictions, thus the
trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress “the illegally
obtained blood draw evidence” and his trial counsel’s failure to
preserve the issue for appeal violated his right to federal due
process under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.
(Pet. 6 & Pet’r’s Mem. 10, ECF Nos. 1 & 10.)
III. RULE 5 STATEMENT
Respondent does not believe that the petition is barred by
1
Under § 724.012(b)(3)(B),
(b) A peace officer shall require the taking of a specimen of
the person’s breath or blood under any of the following
circumstances if the officer arrests the person for an offense under
Chapter 49, Penal Code, involving the operation of a motor vehicle
. . . and the person refuses the officer’s request to submit to the
taking of a specimen voluntarily:
. . .
(3) at the time of the arrest, the officer possesses or
receives reliable information from a credible source that the
person:
. . .
(B) on two or more occasions, has been previously
convicted or placed on community supervision for an offense under
Section 49.04 [DWI] . . . .
TEX. TRANSP. CODE ANN. § 724.012(b)(3)(B) (West 2011).
3
successiveness, the statute of limitations, or a failure to exhaust
state-court remedies. (Resp’t’s Answer 5, ECF No. 11.)
IV. DISCUSSION
A. Legal Standard for Granting Habeas Corpus Relief
A § 2254 habeas petition is governed by the heightened
standard of review provided for by the Anti-Terrorism and Effective
Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Under the Act, a
writ of habeas corpus should be granted only if a state court
arrives at a decision that is contrary to or an unreasonable
application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent or that
is based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of
the record before the state court. Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S.
86, 100-01 (2011); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)–(2). This standard is
difficult to meet but “stops short of imposing a complete bar on
federal court relitigation of claims already rejected in state
proceedings.” Harrington, 562 U.S. at 102.
Additionally, the statute requires that federal courts give
great deference to a state court’s factual findings. Hill v.
Johnson, 210 F.3d 481, 485 (5th Cir. 2000). Section 2254(e)(1)
provides that a determination of a factual issue made by a state
court shall be presumed to be correct. The petitioner has the
burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and
convincing evidence. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1); Miller-El v.
4
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 340 (2003); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S.
362, 399 (2000). Typically, when the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals denies relief in a state habeas-corpus application without
written opinion, as in this case, it is an adjudication on the
merits, which is entitled to the presumption. See Singleton v.
Johnson, 178 F.3d 381, 384 (5th Cir. 1999); Ex parte Torres, 943
S.W.2d 469, 472 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). Under these circumstances,
a
federal
court
may
assume
the
state
court
applied
correct
standards of federal law to the facts, unless there is evidence
that an incorrect standard was applied, and imply fact findings
consistent with the state court’s disposition. Townsend v. Sain,
372 U.S. 293, 314 (1963)2; Catalan v. Cockrell, 315 F.3d 491, 493
n.3 (5th Cir.2002); Valdez v. Cockrell, 274 F.3d 941, 948 n.11 (5th
Cir. 2001). With these principles in mind, the Court addresses
Petitioner’s claims.
B. Discussion
Petitioner raised his current claims, among others, in his
state habeas application and, based on the record, the habeas court
found and concluded:
After having reviewed the pleadings and instruments on
file in Cause 14427, The State of Texas vs. Brian Keith
Edwards, and the petition on file in this cause, the
Court is of the opinion and does hereby find that trial
counsel was not ineffective. All other grounds raised by
Applicant either were or could have been raised on direct
2
The standards of Townsend v. Sain have been incorporated into 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(d). Harris v. Oliver, 645 F.2d 327, 330 n.2 (5th Cir. 1981).
5
appeal. Accordingly, the Court finds that there are no
controverted, previously unresolved facts material to the
legality of the Applicant’s confinement.
(Adm. R., Writ WR-82,234-01, 63, ECF No. 10-24.3) In turn the Texas
Court of Criminal Appeals denied the application without written
order. Accordingly, this Court may assume the state courts applied
correct standards of federal law to the facts, absent evidence that
an
incorrect
standard
was
applied,
and
infer
fact
findings
consistent with the state courts’ disposition.
Underlying Petitioner’s claims is his belief that the drawing
of his blood was an unconstitutional search and seizure pursuant to
the Supreme Court’s decision in Missouri v. McNeely, — U.S. —, 133
S. Ct. 1552 (2013). In McNeeley, a plurality of the court held that
the need for a warrant to obtain blood in connection with an arrest
for DWI must be determined on a case-by-case basis under the
totality of the circumstances. The court observed that the fact that
alcohol is metabolized does not create per se exigent circumstances.
Instead, the constitutionality of a warrantless blood-alcohol test
is to be determined on the facts of each case.
Petitioner had the opportunity to litigate his claim of an
unlawful search and seizure in state court through the habeas-corpus
procedure. Therefore, this claim is barred from federal habeas
review. Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 494 (1976). Further, McNeely
3
The state habeas record is not paginated; thus, the pagination in the ECF
header is used.
6
was decided in 2013 after Petitioner’s conviction. Trial counsel
cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to anticipate a case
decided after his conviction. “[T]here is no general duty on the
part of defense counsel to anticipate changes in the law . . . .”
United States v. Fields, 565 F.3d 290,
294 (5th Cir. 2009).
Petitioner fails to demonstrate deficient performance by trial
counsel. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984).
Thus, the state courts’ determination of Petitioner’s ineffectiveassistance claim comports with Strickland.
For the reasons discussed, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s
petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254
and DENIES a certificate of appealability.
SIGNED May 9, 2016.
____________________________
TERRY R. MEANS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?