Brown v. Semple

Filing 16

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS: For the reasons stated in the attached ruling, the petition for habeas corpus relief (Doc. # 1 ) is DISMISSED, and respondent's motion to dismiss (Doc. # 12 ) is GRANTED. Because petitioner has not made a substa ntial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), no certificate of appealability shall enter. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of respondent and to close this case. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 10/19/2018. (Sokoloff-Rubin, E.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

KENYA BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. 3:18-cv-742 (JAM)

SCOTT SEMPLE,
Defendant.

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
Petitioner Kenya Brown is a Connecticut state prisoner who is serving a 20-year sentence
following his conviction on multiple criminal charges. He has filed this pro se federal petition for
a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. For the reasons set forth below, I will
dismiss the petition on the ground that it was not timely filed within one year of when Brown’s
state court convictions became final.
BACKGROUND
On September 18, 2003, Brown pleaded guilty in the Connecticut Superior Court to
multiple counts of attempted murder, robbery, kidnapping, illegal possession of a weapon in a
motor vehicle, possession of narcotics with intent to sell, and forgery. On November 7, 2003, he
was sentenced to twenty years imprisonment. Brown did not appeal his convictions or sentence.
See Brown v. Warden, State Prison, 2015 WL 9694344 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2015) (summarizing
the Superior Court plea proceedings).
On October 11, 2012, Brown sought habeas corpus relief in state court on the grounds that
he had been denied effective assistance of counsel, and that his pleas were not entered knowingly
and voluntarily. The state court denied Brown’s petition following a trial. See Brown v. Warden,
2015 WL 9694344. Brown appealed, and his appeal was dismissed by the Connecticut Appellate
1

Court on March 28, 2017. See Brown v. Commissioner of Correction, 171 Conn. App. 903
(2017). Brown then petitioned the Connecticut Supreme Court for discretionary review. His
petition for review was denied on May 17, 2017. See Brown v. Commissioner of Correction, 325
Conn. 926 (2017).
Brown filed this federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus on May 2, 2018. He claims that
his guilty pleas were not knowing and voluntary, and he further claims that his trial counsel
rendered ineffective assistance of counsel.
DISCUSSION
A federal court “shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a
person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in
custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. §
2254(a). Federal law, however, imposes stringent time limitations for prisoners to seek federal
habeas corpus relief. Subject to certain exceptions, federal law requires that a federal petition for
habeas corpus relief be filed within one year of a prisoner’s state court conviction becoming
final. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).1
A state court conviction becomes “final” at “the conclusion of direct review or the
expiration of the time for seeking such review.” § 2244(d)(1)(A). Thus, a conviction becomes

1

The statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), provides in full as follows:
A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody
pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The limitation period shall run 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.

2

“final” either on the date when the highest court to which a petitioner has sought direct review
has denied relief or, if a petitioner has not sought such further review, the date when the time for
seeking such direct review has expired. See Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 150
(2012); Williams v. Artuz, 237 F.3d 147, 151 (2d Cir. 2001).
Here, Brown did not file any direct appeal from his convictions or sentence. His
convictions therefore became final on November 23, 2003, the date when the 20-day time period
for filing an appeal expired. See Connecticut Practice Book § 63-1. The date for him to file a
federal habeas corpus petition expired one year later on November 23, 2004.
Brown eventually filed a state habeas corpus petition in October 2012. It is true that the
filing of a state habeas corpus petition tolls the one-year time period for the filing of a federal
habeas corpus petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). But in cases where the federal one-year time
period has already expired, the later filing of a state habeas corpus petition does not “reset” the
one-year period for a petitioner to file a federal habeas corpus petition. See Smith v. McGinnis,
208 F.3d 13, 17 (2d Cir. 2000). Accordingly, notwithstanding Brown’s filing of a state habeas
corpus petition in 2012 and notwithstanding his subsequent filing of this federal habeas corpus
petition in 2018 within one year of the date when the Connecticut Supreme Court denied review
of his state habeas corpus petition in 2017, the time for Brown to file any federal habeas corpus
petition had already expired long before he initiated any state habeas corpus proceedings.2

2

In September 2010, Brown challenged the adequacy of the mental health treatment provided to him by the
Connecticut Department of Corrections. See Brown v. Warden, State Prison, CV10-4003800-S (Conn. Super. Ct.
2010). Even assuming that this state court proceeding could be characterized as a habeas corpus proceeding that
would toll the statute of limitations for filing a federal habeas corpus petition, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2), this
proceeding was not initiated until long after the one-year period for filing a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus
had expired.

3

Brown does not otherwise argue or establish any grounds to warrant equitable tolling of
the federal statute of limitations. See Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 649 (2010). Accordingly,
the petition for writ of habeas corpus is not timely and therefore must be dismissed.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the petition for habeas corpus relief (Doc. #1) is DISMISSED, and
respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. #12) is GRANTED. Because petitioner has not made a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), no
certificate of appealability shall enter. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of
respondent and to close this case.
It is so ordered.
Dated at New Haven this 19th day of October 2018.
/s/ Jeffrey Alker Meyer
Jeffrey Alker Meyer
United States District Judge

4