Louis v. Dir., TDCJ-CID

• Decision Date: 27 December 2022
• Docket Number: 3:20-cv-3493-E (BT)
• Parties: MICHAEL KENNEDY LOUIS, #2212376, Petitioner, v. DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas

MICHAEL KENNEDY LOUIS, #2212376, Petitioner,
v.
DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID, Respondent.

No. 3:20-cv-3493-E (BT)

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division

December 27, 2022

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

REBECCA RUTHERFORD, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Michael Kennedy Louis, a Texas prisoner, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The District Court referred the petition to the United States magistrate judge for findings and a recommendation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and a standing order of reference. For the following reasons, the Court should DISMISS Louis's petition with prejudice.

Background

An Ellis County jury found Louis guilty of theft of property in an amount between $1,500 and $20,000, enhanced by two prior state jail felonies: a 1998 robbery conviction and a 1991 burglary of a building conviction. ECF No. 12-2 at 25, 73-74. He was sentenced to twenty years' imprisonment and a $10,000 fine. See ECF No. 12-2 at 91. The Tenth Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed the judgment. Louis v. State, 2019 WL 2487852, at *1 (Tex. App.-Waco, 2019, pet. ref'd).

1

Louis filed a petition for discretionary review (PDR), which the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) refused. See id; see also ECF No. 12-22. He then filed a state habeas application, which the CCA denied without written order based on the findings of the trial court without a hearing and on the Court's own independent review of the record. See Ex parte Louis, WR-91,243-01 (Tex. Crim. App. July 15, 2020); ECF No. 12-23.

Thereafter, Louis filed this application for federal habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, in which he argues that:

(1) His sentence was illegally enhanced; and

(2) His sentence was excessive in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The State filed a response to Louis's petition. ECF No. 11. Louis did not file a reply

Legal Standards and Analysis

Louis seeks federal habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d):

(d) An application for writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim-

(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States or

(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in a State court proceeding

2

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Under the “contrary to” clause, a federal habeas court may grant the writ of habeas corpus if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by the United States Supreme Court on a question of law or if the state court decides a case differently from the United States Supreme Court on a set of materially indistinguishable facts. Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 380-84 (2000). Under the “unreasonable application” clause, a federal court may grant a writ of habeas corpus if the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle from the United States Supreme Court's decisions, but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the prisoner's case. Id.

A determination of a factual issue by a state court is presumed to be correct. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). The presumption of correctness applies to both express and implied factual findings. Young v. Dretke, 356 F.3d 616, 629 (5th Cir. 2004). Absent express factual findings, a federal court may imply fact findings consistent with the state court's disposition. Marshall v. Lonberger, 459 U.S. 422, 433 (1983).

And while the deference afforded by Section 2254(d) “does not require that there be an opinion from the state court explaining the state court's reasoning[,]” Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 98 (2011) (citations omitted), when the most recent state court to consider a constitutional issue provides a “reasoned opinion,” a federal habeas corpus court must “review[] the specific reasons given by the state court and defer[] to those reasons if they are reasonable.” Wilson v. Sellers, -U.S.--, 138 S.Ct. 1188, 1191-92, 200 L.Ed.2d 530 (2018). If the opinion “does not come

3

accompanied with those reasons,” a federal court should “‘look through' the unexplained decision to the last related state-court decision providing” particular reasons, both legal and factual, “presume that the unexplained decision adopted the same reasoning,” and give appropriate deference to that decision. Id. But, when no state court decision is accompanied by explanation, the habeas petitioner must show there was “no reasonable basis for the state court to deny relief.” Harrington, 526 U.S. at 98.

A. Louis's claim that his sentence violated state law is not cognizable absent a corresponding federal issue, and Louis fails to show that the CCA's rejection of his due process and ex post facto claims was unreasonable.

In his first ground for relief, Louis claims that his sentence was illegally enhanced due to a 1995 “savings clause” that excluded a state jail felony from being enhanced by a felony conviction committed prior to January 1, 1996. ECF No. 3 at 12-16. Specifically, he claims that his 1991 conviction for burglary of a building was unavailable to enhance his state jail felony to a second-degree felony. See ECF No. 3 at 12-16.

Louis's claim...