Stevenson v. Falcone

Filing 5

ORDER. As set forth herein, the petitioner is ordered to show cause why this petition should not be dismissed as time-barred.The petitioner shall file his response within thirty (30) days from the date of this order. Failure to file a response within the time specified will result in the dismissal of this case as untimely filed. Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 4/19/2017. (Howard, H.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

TERRANCE STEVENSON,
Petitioner,
v.
FALCONE,
Respondent.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No. 3:17-cv-498 (MPS)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
On February 14, 2017, the petitioner, Terrance Stevenson, currently incarcerated at the
Garner Correctional Institution in Newtown, Connecticut, filed a petition for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state convictions.1
On March 4, 1997, the petitioner was convicted of murder as an accessory, in violation of
CONN. GEN. STAT. §§ 53a-54a(a) and 53a-8, and conspiracy to commit murder, in violation of
CONN. GEN. STAT. §§ 53a-54a and 53a-48(a). The Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed the
judgment of conviction on June 1, 1999; State v. Stevenson, 53 Conn. App. 551, 733 A.2d 253
(1999); and the Connecticut Supreme Court denied the petitioner’s petition for certification to
appeal the Appellate Court’s decision on July 21, 1999. State v. Stevenson, 250 Conn. 917, 734
A.2d 990 (1999).
Following his conviction, the petitioner filed his first petition for writ of habeas corpus in
state court.2 The state habeas court denied said petition on May 2, 2000. Stevenson v. Warden,
Although the court’s docketing system denotes the petition was filed on March 27, 2017, a
petition for writ of habeas corpus in federal court is considered filed on the day the inmate gives
the document to prison officials for mailing; Dory v. Ryan, 999 F.2d 679, 682 (2d Cir. 1993).
This Court will assume, for purposes of this motion, that the petitioner submitted the instant
petition to prison officials on February 14, 2017, the same day he signed the petition.
1

No. CV970573787, 2000 WL 638947 (Conn. Super. Ct. May 2, 2000). Thereafter, the
Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed the state habeas court’s decision. Stevenson v. Comm’r of
Correction, 67 Conn. App. 908, 792 A.2d 909 (2002). On March 28, 2002, the Connecticut
Supreme Court denied the petitioner’s petition for certification to appeal the Appellate Court’s
decision. Stevenson v. Comm’r of Correction, 260 Conn. 905, 795 A.2d 547 (2002).
Nine months later, on January 14, 2003, the petitioner filed his second state habeas
action, which was denied on June 6, 2007. Stevenson v. Warden, No. CV030473103S, 2007 WL
1892843 (Conn. Super. Ct. Jun. 6, 2007). The Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed the denial
of that petition on February 17, 2009; Stevenson v. Comm’r of Correction, 112 Conn. App. 675,
963 A.2d 1077 (2009); and the Connecticut Supreme Court denied the petitioner’s petition for
certification to appeal the Appellate Court’s decision on March 31, 2009. Stevenson v. Comm’r
of Correction, 291 Conn. 904, 967 A.2d 1221 (2009).
On March 28, 2012, approximately three years after the second state habeas judgment
became final, the petitioner filed his third state habeas petition. The state habeas court denied
that petition on December 4, 2014; Stevenson v. Warden, No. CV114004660S, 2014 WL
7593460 (Conn. Super. Ct. Dec. 4, 2014). Thereafter, the Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed
the denial of the petition; Stevenson v. Comm’r of Correction, 165 Conn. App. 355, 139 A.3d
718 (2016); and, on June 21, 2016, the Connecticut Supreme Court denied the petitioner’s

2

The petitioner does not indicate in his petition the date on which he filed his first state habeas
petition. After thoroughly reviewing all of the state court opinions and attempting to look up the
file using the docket number provided by the petitioner, this Court cannot determine the exact
filing date of the first state habeas petition. As shown below, however, it appears that the
petitioner’s federal habeas petition would still be time-barred even assuming that the limitations
period did not commence until after the conclusion of the petitioner’s appeal from the denial of
his first state habeas.
2

petition for certification to appeal the Appellate Court’s decision. Stevenson v. Comm’r of
Correction, 322 Conn. 903, 138 A.3d 933 (2016).
Approximately eight months after his third state habeas judgment became final, the
petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court.
Title 28, section 2244(d)(1) of the United States Code imposes a one year statute of
limitations on federal petitions for writ of habeas corpus challenging a judgment of conviction
imposed by a state court. The one-year limitations period runs from the latest of:
(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct
review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review;
(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application created by State
action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if
the applicant was prevented from filing by such State action;
(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially recognized by
the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court
and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or
(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could
have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.
28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). Pursuant to § 2244(d)(2), a state habeas action or other form of postconviction review tolls or interrupts the running of the limitation period. Smith v. McGinnis, 208
F.3d 13, 17 (2d Cir. 2000). When the state post-conviction review terminates, the “clock
restarts” and the limitation period resumes. Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 638, 130 S. Ct.
2549, 177 L. Ed.2d 130 (2010) (citing Coates v. Byrd, 211 F.3d 1225 (11th Cir. 2000)).
It appears from the face of the petition and the state court decisions referenced therein,
that approximately four years and five months elapsed after the date of conviction until the filing
of the instant petition in this Court. Even if no time elapsed between the conclusion of direct
appeal (July 21, 1999) and the filing of the first state habeas petition, the instant petition would
still be time barred. Nine months elapsed between the conclusion of the first state habeas action
3

(March 28, 2002) and the commencement of the second state habeas action (January 14, 2003).
Three years elapsed between the conclusion of the second state habeas action (March 31, 2009)
and the commencement of the third state habeas action (March 28, 2012). Finally, eight more
months elapsed between the conclusion of the third state habeas action (June 21, 2016) and the
filing of the instant petition in this Court (February 14, 2017). Consequently, the instant petition
appears to be time-barred under § 2244(d), and the petition identifies no grounds to conclude
otherwise.
ORDERS
The petitioner is directed to show cause why this petition should not be dismissed as
time-barred.
The petitioner shall file his response within thirty (30) days from the date of this order.
Failure to file a response within the time specified will result in the dismissal of this case as
untimely filed.
SO ORDERED this 19th day of April 2017, at Hartford, Connecticut.

/s/
Michael P. Shea
United States District Judge

4