Jackson v. Carter
Filing
41
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 9/21/2017) (wxc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRIC
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
FORT WORTH DIVISION
CHARLES ALFRED JACKSON,
§
§
Petitioner,
§
§
v.
§
No. 4:16-CV-128-A
§
LORIE DAVIS, Director,
Texas Department of Criminal
Justice, Correctional
Institutions Division,
§
§
§
§
§
Respondent.
§
MEMORANDUM OPINION
and
ORDER
This is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C.
§
2254 filed by petitioner, Charles Alfred Jackson, 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
In September 2001 petitioner was indicted in Tarrant County,
Texas, Case No. 0810273D, for aggravated sexual assault of a
child younger than 14 years of age (count one) and indecency with
concluded that counsel raised the one issue he believed was
supported by the record and that counsel's decision on which
issues to raise in appellant's brief was the result of reasonable
trial strategy.
(Id. at 255-57, 263-66.) The state court's
decision is a reasonable application of Strickland. The
Constitution does not require appellate counsel to raise every
nonfrivolous ground that might be raised on appeal. See Jones v.
Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 751 (1983). Here it appears that appellate
counsel chose to raise the strongest point of error on appeal;
that is a reasonable tactic. See Ellis v. Lynaugh, 873 F.2d 830,
840 (5th Cir. 1989) . Nor has petitioner raised any issues that
counsel failed to raise upon which he was likely to prevail on
appeal.
Id.
A petitioner shoulders a heavy burden to refute the premise
that "an attorney's actions are strongly presumed to have fallen
within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance."
Messer v. Kemp,
760 F.2d 1080, 1090 (11th Cir. 1985). Petitioner
presents no evidentiary, factual, or legal basis in this federal
habeas action that could lead the court to conclude that the
state courts unreasonably applied the standards set forth in
Strickland based on the evidence presented in state court. 28
U.S.C.
§
2254(d). Petitioner is not entitled to relief.
33
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
right.
SIGNED September
__,_)=-->(<---- '
2017 .
/
34
/
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?