Culpepper v. Chatman
Filing
14
OPINION AND ORDER adopting Magistrate Judge Janet F. Kings Final Report and Recommendation 12 , granting Respondent Bruce Chatmans Motion to Dismiss 9 and denying and dismissing as untimely Petitioner Alvenio Culpeppers petition for habeas corpus 1 . It is further ordered that a Certificate of Appealability is denied. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 1/4/17. (ddm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
ALVENIO CULPEPPER,
Petitioner,
v.
1:16-cv-1654-WSD
BRUCE CHATMAN,
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Janet F. King’s Final
Report and Recommendation [12] (“R&R”). The R&R recommends the Court
grant Respondent Bruce Chatman’s (“Respondent”) Motion to Dismiss [9]
Petitioner Alvenio Culpepper’s (“Petitioner”) petition for habeas corpus [1]
(“Petition”).
I.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner was indicted for the September 2006 stabbing death of Jenny
Neville, and charged with two counts of felony murder, aggravated assault, armed
robbery, theft by taking, and two counts of possession of a knife during the
commission of a felony. A Gwinnett County, Georgia jury found Petitioner guilty
on all charges. See Culpepper v. State, 715 S.E.2d 155, 156 & n.1 (Ga. 2011). On
June 2, 2009, the trial court imposed “sentences of life imprisonment for malice
murder, and 20 years for armed robbery, 20 years for aggravated assault, and five
years for possession of a knife, to be served consecutively[.]” See id.
On September 12, 2011, the Georgia Supreme Court (i) found that the
aggravated assault conviction merged with the malice murder conviction,
(ii) remanded for re-sentencing in regard to the sentence imposed for aggravated
assault, and (iii) otherwise affirmed the judgment against Petitioner. Id. at 157-58.
On December 8, 2011, the trial court re-sentenced Petitioner to an aggregate
sentence of life plus twenty-five years for his convictions for murder, armed
robbery, and possession of a knife during the commission of a felony. The record
does not indicate that Petitioner sought further direct review.
On November 26, 2012, Petitioner filed a state habeas corpus petition in the
Superior Court of Tattnall County. ([10.1]). On November 17, 2014, the Superior
Court of Tattnall County denied the relief Petitioner sought. ([10.2]). On
May 11, 2015, the Georgia Supreme Court denied further review and issued the
remittitur. ([10.4], [10.7]).
2
On May 4, 2016,1 Petitioner filed his Petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
On July 8, 2016, Respondent filed his Motion to Dismiss the Petition as untimely.
Petitioner did not respond or offer any argument why this action should not be
dismissed as untimely. On December 5, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued her
R&R. The Magistrate Judge recommends the Court grant Respondent’s Motion to
Dismiss the Petition as untimely. Petitioner did not file any objections to the R&R.
II.
DISCUSSION
A.
Legal Standard
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and
recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams
v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982) (per curiam). A district judge
“shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1). Where, as here, no party has objected to the report and
1
“Under the prison mailbox rule, a pro se prisoner’s court filing is deemed
filed on the date it is delivered to prison authorities for mailing.” Jeffries v. United
States, 748 F.3d 1310, 1314 (11th Cir. 2014) (quoting United States v. Glover,
686 F.3d 1203, 1205 (11th Cir. 2012)).
3
recommendation, the Court conducts only a plain error review of the record.
United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983) (per curiam).
B.
Analysis
Absent extraordinary circumstances, a federal court may not consider the
merits of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus unless it is timely filed. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(d) provides:
(1) 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) The time during which a properly filed application for State
post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent
judgment or claim is pending shall not be counted toward any period
of limitation under this subsection.
4
28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).
The Magistrate Judge found that, because there is no suggestion in the
record that the provisions of subsections (B) through (D) apply, the federal
limitations period began to run when Petitioner’s conviction became final by the
conclusion of direct review or the expiration of time for seeking such review.
(R&R at 5 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A))). The Magistrate Judge
determined that Petitioner’s conviction became final on January 9, 2012. (Id.
(citing O.C.G.A. § 5-6-38; Georgia Supreme Ct. Rule 11)). Petitioner filed his
state habeas corpus petition on November 26, 2012, with 44 days of his federal
limitations period remaining. The filing of the state-court petition tolled the
federal limitations period until May 11, 2015, when the Georgia Supreme Court
denied further review and issued the remittitur. On May 12, 2015, the limitations
period resumed running, and expired on June 24, 2015, 44 days later. The
Magistrate Judge thus found that Petitioner’s May 6, 2016, Petition should be
denied and dismissed as untimely. The Court finds no plain error in these findings
and recommendation, and Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is granted. See Slay,
714 F.2d at 1095.
The Magistrate Judge also recommends that a certificate of appealability
(“COA”) be denied, because the untimeliness of Petitioner’s Petition is not
5
debatable based on the record before the Court. The Court finds no plain error in
this finding and recommendation, and a COA is denied. See id. Petitioner is
advised that he “may not appeal the denial but may seek a certificate from the court
of appeals under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22.” Rule 11(a), Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Janet F. King’s Final
Report and Recommendation [12] is ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent Bruce Chatman’s Motion to
Dismiss [9] is GRANTED. Petitioner Alvenio Culpepper’s petition for habeas
corpus [1] is DENIED and DISMISSED as untimely.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a COA is DENIED.
SO ORDERED this 4th day of January, 2017.
6
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?