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, )

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?