AfcJolk ^eiAAA KdoOU A? 4WAL 2hAc\ W*S AiaJ aA.a^\cA4o4w^vo tCgl 44\£_^iaA A?Q$?A?k>Al KopcAa iA kuA(4?o?^cAAAfr )o ??
tep^iA (la,
'Eubflo CeAj'iaZ'
£„£./to£ ?fea^lA<=^Ja- mwa:
SHARON KELLER ABEL ACOSTA PRESIDING JUDGE Court of Criminal Appeals CLERK ' . (512)463-1551 P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION LAWRENCE MEYERS TOM PRICE AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711 - " SIAN SCHILHAB PAUL WOMACK GENERAL COUNSEL (512)463-1600 CHERYL JOHNSON MIKE KEASLER BARBARA P. HERVEY CATHY COCHRAN ELSA ALCALA JUDGES
November 25, 2014
Rubin Crain IV #12023660 Dallas County Bureau #2 W02 P.O. Box 660334 Dallas, TX 75266-0334
RE: Trial Court Case #W12543 \8-y-.a^(iU&lA>^±cX <\V Kb. lO(^[2A:2>) Dear Mr. Crain:
We are returning this writ application because it does not comply with Article 11.07, Section 3(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
A writ seeking relief from a final felony conviction under Code of Criminal Procedure Article 11.07 must be on the prescribed form and must be filed with the District Clerk in the county of the conviction. The District Clerk will then prepare a record and transmit to the Court of Criminal Appeals.
Sincerely
Abel Acosta, Clerk
AA/vj A> auloSGdc.oO (KjfljAkjA(2) k\ Vz&iM&C^cA CAS£_ KXj. Enclosure * U^ia -sis i?- kAh) Sfo NixjDaJ^ycEJo^uOl^^bl Hl(A
Supreme Court Building, 201 West 14th Street, Room 106, Austin, Texas 78701 Website www.cca.courts.state.tx.us
tZ'.c.'tlcJB! ^f^chWvao^a:?) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
RUBIN CRAIN, IV, § § Petitioner, § § V. § No. 3:14-cv-920-M-BN § DALLAS COUNTY SHERIFF, ET AL., § § Respondents. §
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Petitioner Rubin Crain, IV has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. For the reasons explained below, the petition should be
construed as an application for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and
dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies.
Background
On August 4, 2012, Petitioner was convicted burglary of a building. Following
his conviction, he pleaded true to two felony enhancements. The jury found the
enhancement allegations true and assessed a ten-year sentence of imprisonment.
' Petitioner's conviction was affirmed on direct appeal, and his judgment was modified
to reflect the jury's findings of"true." See Crain v. State, No. 05-12-01219-CR, 2014 WL
357398 (Tex. App. - Dallas, Jan. 31, 2014, pet. refd). Petitioner has recently filed an
application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Texas Code of Criminal Procedure
article 11.07 that is currently pending before the state trial court.
-1-
assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal and that the sentencing enhancements
violate the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. See Dkt. No. 3.
On March 26, 2014, the Court sent Petitioner written interrogatories to
determine whether he exhausted his state remedies. See Dkt. No. 4. Petitioner
answered the interrogatories on April 7, 2014 and has filed documents on July 16,
2014, August 19, 2014, and August 27, 2014. See Dkt. Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, & 9.
Legal Standards
A pre-trial detainee may challenge the State's power and authority to bring him
to trial and the constitutionality or lawfulness of his confinement by petition for writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Dickerson v. Louisiana, 816 F.2d
220, 224 (5th Cir. 1987). Once an individual has been convicted and is confined on i
authority of the criminal judgment, he may challenge the lawfulness of his conviction
and sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); see also, e.g.,
Williams v. O'Brien, No. 4:06-cv-834-Y, 2006 WL 3871924, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 4,
2006), rec. adopted, 2007 WL 60487 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 5, 2007); Branch v. Dretke, No.
3:03-cv-2607-H, 2004 WL 18.77798, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 20, 2004), rec. adopted, 2004
WL 1960192 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 2, 2004).
Whether or not a petitioner seeks relief under Section 2241 or Section 2254, he
is required to fully exhaust available state remedies before submitting his federal
habeas petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A); Dickerson, 816 F.2d at 225. This entails
submitting the factual and legal basis of any claim to the highest available state court
-2-
*Z* c~. tt£ for review in a procedurally correct manner. See Satterwhite v. Lynaugh, 886 F.2d 90,
92-93 (5th Cir. 1989). In Texas, a prisoner must present his claims to the Texas Court
of Criminal Appeals in a petition for discretionary review or an application for writ of
habeas corpus. See Bautistav.McCotter, 793F.2dl09,110-11 (5th Cir. 1986). A federal
habeas petition that contains unexhausted claims must be dismissed in its entirety.
See id.; see also Thomas v. Collins, 919 F.2d 333, 334 (5th Cir. 1990).
Analysis
Petitioner's challenge to his 2012 conviction and sentence for burglary of a
building should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies.
When Petitioner filed this petition, his petition for discretionary review had not been
reviewed by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, and he had not filed an application
for habeas corpus relief under article 11.07. See Dkt. No. 5 at 3-4. His petition for
discretionary review has now been refused, see Crain v. State, PD-0321-14 (Tex. Crim.
App. July 23, 2014), but his 11.07 application is still pending before the state trial
court, see Dkt. No. 9; see also Ex parte Crain, No. W-1254318-A (filed Aug. 19, 2014).
Unless and until Petitioner fully exhausts his state remedies, he may not seek federal
habeas relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A); Thomas, 919 F.2d at 334; Dickerson, 816
F.2d at 225.
Recommendation
Petitioner's 28 U.S.C. § 2241 application should be construed as an application
for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The case should be dismissed
without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies.
-3-
£,C^ ^t^ h^pA\iteutfac. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
RUBIN CRAIN, IV, Petitioner,
3:14-CV-3711-L-BK
DALLAS COUNTY SHERIFF, § Respondents. §
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Petitioner, a Dallas County jail inmate proceeding pro se, filed a federal habeas corpus
petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. which was automatically referred to the magistrate judge. See
28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Special Order 3. For the reasons that follow, it is recommended that the
petition be dismissed for failure to exhaust state court remedies.
I. BACKGROUND
On August 4, 2012, Petitioner was convicted of burglary of a building and was sentenced
to ten years' imprisonment. See State v. Crain, No. F12-54318 (Crim. Dist. Court No. 7, Dallas
County 2012), aff'd, No. 05-12-01219-CR, 2014 WL 357398 (Tex. App. - Dallas. Jan. 31. 2014.
pet, refd). On August 19, 2014, Petitioner filed an application for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 11.07. which is currently pending before
the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Exparte Crain, No. WR-49,450-04 (receivedby Texas
Court of Criminal Appeals Oct. 6, 2014). In his federal petition, filed October 16, 2014,
Petitioner alleges ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal. [Doc. 3 at 6-71. He
filed a prior federal petition, which was summarily dismissed for failure to exhaust state court
remedies. Crain v. Dallas County Sheriff. No. 3:14-CV-0920-M-BN. 2014 WL 4594523 (N.D.
Tex. Aug. 27. 2014). recommendation accepted, 2014 WL 4555662 (N.D. Tex. Sep. 12. 2014).
Page 1 of 3 II. ANALYSIS
A state prisoner must exhaust all available state court remedies before a federal court will
consider the merits of his habeas claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b) and (c); Rhines v. Weber, 544
U.S. 269, 274 (2005). The exhaustion requirement is designed to "protect the state court's role
in the enforcement of federal law and prevent the disruption of state judicial proceedings." Rose
v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518 (1982). Exhaustion of state court remedies "is satisfied when the
substance of the federal habeas claim has been fairly presented to the highest state court."
Morris v. Dretke, 379 F.3d 199. 204 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting Mercadel v. Cain. 179 F.3d 271.
275 (5th Cir. 1999)). A Texas prisoner may satisfy that requirement by presenting both the
factual and legal substance of his claims to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in a petition for
discretionary review or in an application for a state writ of habeas corpus under Article 11.07 of
the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Whitehead v. Johnson, 157 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir.
1998).
Petitioner has not satisfied the exhaustion requirement. A review of his petition and the
state courts' docket sheets (available online) confirms that his state habeas application is
presently pending before the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Because the Court of Criminal
Appeals has not yet had an opportunity to consider Petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of
counsel, they remain unexhausted.
Page 2 of 3 III. RECOMMENDATION
For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the petition for writ of habeas corpus
be DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to exhaust state court remedies. See 28 U.S.C. §
2254(b) and (c).1
SIGNED October 20, 2014.
HARRIS TOLIVER rEEvSTAT-ES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT
A copy of this report and recommendation will be served on all parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of this report and recommendation must file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). In order to be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the place in the magistrate judge's report and recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file specific written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Services Automobile Ass k, 79 F.3d 1415. 1417 (5th Cir. 1996).
HARRIS TOLIVER /STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
1Petitioner is cautioned that the 1996 amendments to thehabeas corpus statute impose a one-year statute of limitations for filing habeas corpus petitions in federal court, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), and that this provision is applicable to this petition as well as to any other petition that he may file in this court. Thus, Petitioner should act diligently and expediently if he intends to seek habeas corpus relief in both state and federal court.
Page 3 of 3