Martinez v. Quarterman

Martinez v. Quarterman

Opinion

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

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and an Order of the Court in implementation thereof, subject cause has previously been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge. The findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are as follows:

I. BACKGROUND

A. Nature of the Case

Petitioner, an inmate currently incarcerated in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice -Correctional Institutions Division (TDCJ-CID), filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He challenges (1) his guilty plea to two counts of aggravated robbery in Cause Nos. F01-48414-PN and F01-73144-PN; (2) the subsequent revocation of his deferred adjudication probation and adjudication of guilt; and (3) the resulting twenty-five year sentence. Respondent is Nathaniel Quarterman, Director  [*2] of TDCJ-CID.

B. Procedural and Factual History

In January 2001, the State indicted petitioner for two aggravated robberies with a deadly weapon. See S.H. Tr.-01 ¹ at 59; S.H. Tr.-02 at 54. On June 11, 2001, petitioner pled guilty to the aggravated robberies, and the court placed him on five years deferred adjudication probation. See S.H. Tr.-01 at 62; S.H. Tr.-02 at 57. Lisa DeWitt represented petitioner during these proceedings. See S.H. Tr.-01 at 50; S.H. Tr.-02 at 45. Petitioner did not appeal that placement. (Mem. Supp. at 1.)

On January 18, 2002, the State moved to revoke petitioner's probation and requested final adjudication of his offenses for various probation violations, including failing to report to his probation officer for three months, failing to pay court-ordered costs and fines, and engaging in additional criminal activity based on charges of unauthorized  [*3] use of a motor vehicle (UUMV) in Cause No. F01-41103-LN. See S.H. Tr.-01 at 66-67; S.H. Tr.-02 at 61-62. On that same date, the trial court conducted a joint revocation and sentencing hearing on petitioner's two aggravated robbery convictions as well as a plea and sentencing hearing on the UUMV offense. See Rep.'s R., Vol. III [hereinafter cited as RR-volume # at page]. Petitioner pled guilty to the new charge in exchange for a nine-month sentence and pled true to the probation violations on an open plea. Id. at 8-10. Teresa Hawthorne represented petitioner at these proceedings. See id. at 1; S.H. Tr.-01 at 50; S.H. Tr.-02 at 45; S.H. Tr.-03 at 31-32. The court revoked petitioner's probation, adjudicated him guilty of the aggravated robbery offenses, and sentenced him to twenty-five years imprisonment for each of those offenses. RR-III at 19.

On May 29, 2003, the court of appeals dismissed petitioner's appeals for lack of jurisdiction because petitioner's guilty pleas prohibited him from asserting the claims raised therein. See Martinez v. State, Nos. 05-02-00203-CR, 05-02-00204-CR, 05-02-00205-CR, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 4558 at *2-*3(Tex. App. — Dallas May 29, 2003, pet ref'd) (noting that petitioner  [*4] complained about his attorney (1) failing to investigate his cases after he was indicted for UUMV and facing adjudication; (2) failing to know his true name; and (3) convincing him to plead guilty and true instead of contesting the allegations against him). On September 3, 2003, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals refused petitioner's petition for discretionary review. (Mem. Supp. at 1-2.)

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.