Davis v. Stephens-Director TDCJ-CID
Memorandum Opinion and Order: The court ORDERS that petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 be, and is hereby, denied. The court further ORDERS that a certificate of appealability be, and is hereby, denied, as petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. (Ordered by Judge John McBryde on 10/20/2017) (edm)
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS ~----]
FORT WORTH DIVISION
~~--2 0 20f7
FINNIS DAVIS II,
LORIE DAVIS, Director,
Texas Department of Criminal
This is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
2254 filed by petitioner, Finnis Davis II, a state
prisoner incarcerated in the Correctional Institutions Division
of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), against Lorie
Davis, director of TDCJ, respondent. After having considered the
pleadings, state court records, and relief sought by petitioner,
the court has concluded that the petition should be denied.
I. Procedural History
Petitioner was charged in Tarrant County, Texas, Case No.
1199412D, with attempted capital murder of Saudi Taylor and Oscar
Roney during the same criminal episode.
(State Habeas R. 265,
doc. 24-42.) A jury found petition guilty and found the repeat-
precedent, and the state court's decision comports with Fifth
Circuit case law. See Kirkpatrick v. Whitley,
992 F.2d 491, 497
(5th Cir. 1993). See also Little v. Butler, 848 F.2d 73, 76 (5th
(inconsistencies in witnesses' testimony at trial are
to be resolved by trier of fact and do not suffice to establish
that certain testimony was perjured) . Petitioner has failed to
show that Taylor's testimony was actually false,
prosecution knew her testimony was false and failed to correct
it, or that her testimony regarding the number of shots fired was
material given other evidence that more than one shot was fired.
Nor has petitioner demonstrated that the state court's
adjudication of the Brady issue was contrary to, or involved an
unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court
precedent. Under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), the state
has an affirmative duty to disclose evidence favorable and
material to a defendant's guilt or punishment. Petitioner fails
to show that the state was in possession of Roney's medical
records and suppressed or withheld them or that the records would
have been favorable to him.
For the reasons discussed herein,
The court ORDERS that petitioner's petition for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
2254 be, and is hereby,
denied. The court further ORDERS that a certificate of
appealability be, and is hereby, denied, as petitioner has not
made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
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?