In this video Houston, Texas criminal defense attorney Tom Abbate discusses the defense of sex crimes, the skills required for a successful defense team, and the so-called “Outcry Statute”.
Cyber Crimes
In this video Houston Criminal Defense Attorney Tom Abbate discusses cyber crimes in Texas including access interference, online solicitation of a minor, federal wire fraud charges, and tampering with electronic voting machines.
Warrantless Searches & Seizures Part II
In this second segment of discussion on warrantless searches Houston, Texas criminal attorney Tom Abbate turns his focus on searches of automobiles, inventory searches, and the motion to suppress evidence found during an unconstitutional search.
Expunctions & Petitions for Non-disclosure
In this program Criminal Attorney Tom Abbate discusses the means of expunging or petitioning for orders of non-disclosure on a criminal record.
Family Violence Crimes pt. II
In this second segment of a two-part presentation, Houston Criminal Attorney Tom Abbate further discusses family violence crimes in Texas.
Timeline for 2254 Federal Writs of Habeas Corpus
28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)
The AEDPA established “an explicit limitation period for state prisoners filing federal habeas petitions.” Fisher v. Johnson, 174 F.3d 710, 711 (5th Cir. 1999) (citing Lonchar v. Thomas, 517 U.S. 314, 327 (1996)); see also Cantu-Tzin v. Johnson, 162 F.3d 295, 298 (5th Cir. 1998). Inmates generally must file the constitutional claims one year after state review has concluded. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). The one year-period generally runs from the date the conviction becomes final by the conclusion of direct review (including the filing of a cert. petition) or the time for seeking such expires. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A); see also Gonzalez v. Thaler, 132 S. Ct. 641, 653-54 (2012).
A “properly filed” application for “state post-conviction or other collateral review” tolls the limitations period while it is pending. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). “A ‘properly filed’ application is one that conforms with a state’s applicable filing procedural requirements.” Villegas v. Johnson, 184 F.3d 467, 470 (5th Cir. 1999) (holding that a state habeas application dismissed pursuant to Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 11.07, Section 4 was “properly filed”); see also Larry v. Dretke, 361 F.3d 890, 894 (5th Cir. 2004) (state habeas application filed before mandate issues or is otherwise “non-compliant” is “not properly filed”). If an application is “properly filed,” it will toll for “as long as the ordinary state collateral review is ‘in continuance’––i.e., ‘until the completion of that process.’” Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214, 219-20 (2002) (citation omitted) (holding that the time between state applications is not tolled).