Daniels v. Hetzel et al (INMATE3)

Filing 15

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE it is Ordered that on or before 10/29/08, Daniels shall show cause why his federal habeas petition should not be denied as it was not filed within the one-year limitation period established by 28 USC 2244(d)(1); Show Cause Response due by 10/29/2008. Signed by Honorable Susan Russ Walker on 10/9/08. (vma, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA S O U T H E R N DIVISION W IL L IE JAMES DANIELS, # 118348, P e titio n e r, v GARY HETZEL, et al., R e s p o n d e n ts . ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER T h is cause is before the court on a petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed on May 6, 2008, by state inmate Willie James Daniels ("Daniels"). By his p e t itio n , Daniels challenges his guilty plea conviction for first-degree escape entered against h im in February 1998 by the Circuit Court of Coffee County, Alabama. Daniels was s e n te n c ed to a term of 40 years in prison. T h e respondents have filed an answer in which they argue that Daniels's habeas p e t itio n is barred by the one-year limitation period applicable to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petitions. S e e 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).1 The respondents contend that because the conviction that D a n ie ls challenges became final in 1998 ­ after the effective date of the statute of limitations ­ Daniels must have filed his § 2254 petition within a year of the conviction's becoming f in a l, exclusive of the time that any properly filed state post-conviction petition related to the

Civil Action No.1:08cv815-TMH (WO)

Subsection (d) was added by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (the "AEDPA"). This Act became effective on April 24, 1996.

1

c o n v ic tio n was pending in the state courts. The respondents observe that Daniels challenged h is conviction and sentence through two state post-conviction petitions ­ the first filed in A u g u s t 2007and the second in November 2007. However, the respondents maintain that t h e s e state proceedings had no effect on the running of the federal limitation period in 28 U .S .C . § 2244(d)(1), as they were initiated well after the federal limitation period expired. S e e Webster v. Moore, 199 F.3d 1256, 1259 (11 th Cir. 2000); also Tinker v. Moore, 255 F.3d 1 3 3 1 , 1333 1335 n.4 (11 th Cir. 2001). U p o n review of the pleadings filed in this case and the law of this Circuit, it appears th a t Daniels's§ 2254 petition is precluded from review by this court because it was not filed w ith in the time allowed by applicable federal law. T itle 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A) provides that the limitation period for filing a 28 U .S .C . § 2254 petition begins to run on the date when the time for seeking direct review of t h e challenged judgment expired. Daniels, who pled guilty, was convicted in the Circuit C o u rt of Houston County on February 5, 1998. He was sentenced that same day. He did not f ile a direct appeal of his conviction or sentence. Because he failed to undertake the direct a p p e al process, his conviction became final on March 19, 1998 (forty-two days after im p o s itio n of sentence), as this is the date on which his time to seek direct review expired. S e e Rule 4(b)(1), Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure. The one-year period of limitation c o n ta in e d in section 2244(d)(1)(A), therefore, began to run on this date and ran uninterrupted u n til it expired on March 19, 1999.

2

2 8 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) provides that "[t]he time during which a properly filed a p p lic a tio n for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent ju d g m e n t or claim is pending shall not be counted toward any period of limitation under this se c tio n ." By the time Daniels filed his state post-conviction petitions challenging his c o n v ic tio n s (the first was filed in August 2007, and the second was filed in November 2007) t h e time allowed Daniels for the filing of a timely federal habeas petition had long since e x p ire d . Thus, these state proceedings could have no tolling effect on the running of the f e d e ra l limitations period. Webster, 199 F.3d at 1259; see also Tinker, 255 F.3d at 1333 & 1 3 3 5 n.4. U n d e r the circumstances of this case as outlined in this order, it appears that the oneye a r period of limitation contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) expired well before Daniels f ile d the instant habeas petition under § 2254. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that on or before October 29, 2008, Daniels shall show cause why his f e d era l habeas petition should not be denied as it was not filed within the one-year limitation p eriod established by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). D o n e this 9 th day of October, 2008.

/s/Susan Russ Walker SUSAN RUSS WALKER C H IE F UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3