Trigg v. Davis-Director TDCJ-CID
3:17-cv-01900
N.D. Tex.Aug 16, 2017Background
- Petitioner Alvin Dewayne Trigg was convicted of aggravated robbery in Dallas County, Texas, on May 5, 2010, and sentenced to 40 years; the Texas Court of Appeals affirmed on June 27, 2011.
- Trigg did not file a petition for discretionary review; his conviction became final after the 30-day PDR period expired (July 27, 2011).
- He filed two state habeas applications in 2016: one unsigned and dismissed for noncompliance; a second signed application was denied by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals on June 14, 2017.
- Trigg mailed his federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on July 13, 2017, asserting multiple ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims.
- The magistrate judge held Trigg’s federal petition was barred by AEDPA’s one-year limitations period, that state habeas filings in 2016 did not toll the limitations period (which expired in 2012), and that Trigg failed to show entitlement to equitable tolling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Trigg’s § 2254 petition is timely under AEDPA § 2244(d)(1)(A) | Trigg implies trial/counsel errors justify later filing or tolling | Respondent argues limitations ran from finality of conviction in 2011 and expired July 27, 2012 | Petition untimely; limitations expired July 27, 2012 |
| Whether Trigg’s 2016 state habeas applications statutorily toll AEDPA | Trigg’s state writs tolled limitations | Respondent: state filings occurred after AEDPA deadline and cannot toll | No statutory tolling; state applications filed after limitations period expired |
| Whether equitable tolling applies | Trigg argued late notice of state denial and counsel’s failure to file PDR justify tolling | Respondent: these circumstances do not qualify as extraordinary or diligent pursuit | Equitable tolling denied; petitioner failed to show diligence and extraordinary circumstances |
| Whether petitioner’s separate administrative filing affects timeliness | Petitioner argued procedural posture or filings in another case entitle him to relief | Respondent: prior administrative filings do not restart or toll AEDPA clock | No effect; prior filings/delay do not render petition timely |
Key Cases Cited
- Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320 (statute applied to petitions filed after AEDPA effective date)
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (equitable tolling requires diligence and extraordinary circumstances)
- Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (principles governing equitable tolling in habeas context)
- Roberts v. Cockrell, 319 F.3d 690 (finality rule for Texas convictions when no PDR filed)
- Coleman v. Johnson, 184 F.3d 398 (analysis of equitable tolling and state proceedings’ effect)
- Scott v. Johnson, 227 F.3d 260 (state filings after AEDPA deadline do not toll limitations)