OPINION AND ORDER

REED C. O'CONNOR, District Judge.

Before the Court is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by petitioner, Montrail Ferrell, a.k.a. Akhenatun Khalid El-Bey, a person in state custody, against Leighton Iles, director of Tarrant County's Community Supervision and Corrections Department, Respondent.1 After considering the pleadings and relief sought by Petitioner, the Court has concluded that the petition should be dismissed without prejudice on exhaustion grounds.

I. BACKGROUND

Petitioner was charged by information in Tarrant County, Texas, Case No. 1354878, with falsely identifying himself as a police officer. Resp't's Reply 15, ECF No. 9.2 On November 13, 2014, Petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge, but, following a bench trial, he was found guilty and placed on 12 months' community supervision. Id. at 16. Petitioner appealed his conviction, but the Second District Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed the trial court's judgment on February 4, 2016. Id. at 18-19. Public records indicate that Petitioner did not file a timely petition for discretionary review and that his motion for extension of time to do so was denied by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Public records do not indicate that Petitioner filed a postconviction state habeas-corpus application followed by the appellate procedure provided by state law.

II. ISSUES

Petitioner raises four grounds for relief (all spelling and/or grammatical errors are in the original):

Pet. 5-6, ECF No. 1.

III. RULE 5 STATEMENT

In his reply, Respondent asserts that the petition should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state-court remedies or, in the alternative, denied on the merits. Resp't's Reply 4-12, ECF No. 9.

IV. EXHAUSTION

Applicants seeking habeas corpus relief under § 2254 are required to exhaust all claims in the state courts before requesting federal habeas relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1), (c)3; Fisher v. Texas, 169 F.3d 295, 302 (5th Cir. 1999). In order to exhaust, a petitioner must "fairly present" all of his claims to the highest state court for review. See O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842-48 (1999); Richardson v. Procunier, 762 F.2d 429, 430-31 (5th Cir. 1985). A habeas-corpus petitioner who was granted community supervision by a Texas court may satisfy the exhaustion requirement by presenting both the factual and legal substance of his claim(s) to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in either a petition for discretionary review or a state habeas-corpus proceeding pursuant to article 11.072 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.072 (West 2015); Alexander v. Johnson, 163 F.3d 906, 908-09 (5th Cir. 1998); Bd. of Pardons & Paroles v. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Dist., 910 S.W.2d 481, 484 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). Petitioner did not file a timely petition for discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals nor has he demonstrated that he filed a postconviction state habeas-corpus application pursuant to the procedures provided in article 11.072 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Because there has been no fair presentation of Petitioner's claims to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the claims are unexhausted.

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed herein, Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of exhaustion of state-court remedies. Further, a certificate of appealability is DENIED as Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right or demonstrated that reasonable jurists would question this Court's procedural ruling.

SO ORDERED