Heldenbrand v. Director, TDCJ-CID
Heldenbrand v. Director, TDCJ-CID
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS No. 6:21-cv-00214 Danny Dee Heldenbrand, Petitioner, v. Director, TDCJ-CID, Respondent.
ORDER Petitioner Danny Heldenbrand, proceeding pro se, filed this petition for the writ of habeas corpus under
28 U.S.C. § 2254complaining of the legality of his conviction. Doc. 1. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love. Doc. 2. Petitioner challenged his conviction for indecency with a child by sexual contact, for which he received a sentence of 16 years in prison. Doc. 22 at 1. In his federal habeas petition, he asserted that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, that there was no evi- dence or insufficient evidence to support his conviction, and that he is actually innocent. Jd. at 2. The magistrate judge ordered the re- spondent to answer the petition (Doc. 3) and received copies of the state court records. Docs. 11, 12. Petitioner filed a response. Doc. 15. After review of the pleadings and the state court records, the magistrate judge issued a report recommending that the petition for habeas corpus relief be denied. Doc. 22. Copies of the report were sent to petitioner on November 16, 2023, and January 9, 2024, but no objections have been received. The Fifth Circuit has explained that where a letter is properly placed in the United States mail, a pre- sumption exists that the letter reached its destination in the usual time and was actually received by the person to whom it was ad- dressed. Factane v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada,
931 F.3d 412, 420-21 & n.9 (5th Cir. 2019).
When there have been no timely objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the court reviews it only for clear error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n,
79 F.3d 1415, 1420(5th Cir. 1996). Having reviewed the magistrate judge’s re- port, and being satisfied that it contains no clear error, the court accepts its findings and recommendation. The above-styled peti- tion for habeas corpus relief is dismissed with prejudice. A certif- icate of appealability is denied sua sponte. So ordered by the court on May 13, 2024. _fLacbok BARKER United States District Judge
_2-
Reference
- Status
- Unknown