Brewer v. Davis
3:18-cv-00120
| S.D. Tex. | May 16, 2018Background
- Petitioner Maurice Lawrence Brewer pleaded guilty on March 15, 1991 to aggravated robbery (cause No. 91-CR-0279) and murder (cause No. 91-CR-0280) in Galveston County and received consecutive life sentences.
- Brewer did not file direct appeals; convictions became final 30 days after entry.
- In 2017 Brewer filed state habeas applications on both convictions; the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied relief on July 19, 2017.
- Brewer filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on April 18, 2018, raising ineffective assistance of counsel and due-process/involuntary-plea/subject-matter-jurisdiction claims.
- The district court determined Brewer’s petition is barred by the AEDPA one-year statute of limitations because his convictions became final well before AEDPA’s effective date and he did not file federal habeas within the grace period.
- The court dismissed the petition with prejudice as time-barred, denied a certificate of appealability, and denied pending motions as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness under AEDPA § 2244(d)(1)(A) | Brewer contends federal review is warranted of his 1991 convictions. | Davis argues the petition is untimely under AEDPA and must be dismissed. | Petition dismissed as untimely; Brewer’s deadline expired long before filing. |
| Statutory tolling for state habeas filings | Brewer’s 2017 state habeas could toll limitations. | Davis notes state filings occurred after AEDPA limitation expired and thus do not toll. | State habeas did not toll because it was filed after the limitations period expired. |
| Equitable tolling (diligence/extraordinary circumstances) | Brewer implies entitlement to review but alleges no facts showing impediment or diligence. | Davis argues no facts support equitable tolling. | Equitable tolling not available; petitioner did not show diligence or extraordinary circumstances. |
| Certificate of appealability (COA) | Brewer would seek COA to appeal adverse ruling. | Davis argues reasonable jurists would not find procedural ruling debatable. | COA denied; reasonable jurists would not debate the court’s procedural assessment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kiser v. Johnson, 163 F.3d 326 (5th Cir. 1999) (district courts may dismiss habeas petitions sua sponte under Rule 4 when untimeliness plainly appears)
- United States v. Flores, 135 F.3d 1000 (5th Cir. 1998) (one-year AEDPA grace period for convictions final before AEDPA effective date)
- Wood v. Milyard, 566 U.S. 463 (2012) (statute of limitations begins when conviction becomes final)
- Richards v. Thaler, 710 F.3d 573 (5th Cir. 2013) (state habeas filed after expiration of AEDPA limitations does not toll the limitations period)
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010) (equitable tolling requires diligence and extraordinary circumstances)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (standard for certificate of appealability)
- Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274 (2004) (COA requires substantial showing of denial of constitutional right)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (when dismissal is on procedural grounds, petitioner must show debatable procedural ruling and debatable constitutional claim)