Davenport v. Dretke

Fifth Circuit

Davenport v. Dretke

106 F. App'x 924

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedAugust 25, 2004

Docket03-20531

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 106 F. App'x 924 (Davenport v. Dretke) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Davenport v. Dretke, 106 F. App'x 924 (5th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Larry Wayne Davenport, Texas state prisoner # 868719, is appealing the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habe-as petition as time-barred. Davenport was convicted following a jury trial of felony theft and was sentenced as a habitual offender to 60 years’ imprisonment.

Davenport argues that the limitation period should have been equitably tolled because the state habeas trial court delayed filing his state application for postconviction relief.

Davenport has failed to demonstrate that he diligently pursued his rights. Nor has Davenport shown that he was actively misled by state officials or was prevented in some extraordinary way from exercising his rights. Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to apply the doctrine of equitable tolling to the limitations period. Coleman v. Johnson, 184 F.3d 398, 402-03 (5th Cir.1999). The dismissal of the petition as time-barred is AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM: *

Larry Wayne Davenport, Texas state prisoner # 868719, is appealing the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habe-as petition as time-barred. Davenport was convicted following a jury trial of felony theft and was sentenced as a habitual offender to 60 years’ imprisonment.

Davenport argues that the limitation period should have been equitably tolled because the state habeas trial court delayed filing his state application for postconviction relief.

Davenport has failed to demonstrate that he diligently pursued his rights. Nor has Davenport shown that he was actively misled by state officials or was prevented in some extraordinary way from exercising his rights. Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to apply the doctrine of equitable tolling to the limitations period. Coleman v. Johnson, 184 F.3d 398, 402-03 (5th Cir.1999). The dismissal of the petition as time-barred is AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 F. App'x 924, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davenport-v-dretke-ca5-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack