Beckefeld v. Warden

Filing 3

OPINION AND ORDER: The Court DENIES the petition ECF 2 pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 4 because it is untimely, DENIES Drew A. Beckefeld a certificate of appealability pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 11, DENIES Drew A. Beckefeld leave to appeal in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and DIRECTS the clerk to enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 12/8/17. (Copy mailed to pro se party). (nal)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
DREW A. BECKEFELD,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO. 3:17-CV-911-RLM-MGG

OPINION AND ORDER
Drew A. Beckefeld, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a habeas corpus
petition to challenge his conviction for burglary and fraud under cause number
91D01-1205-FC-66. After a guilty plea, on November 13, 2012, the White County
Superior Court sentenced Mr. Beckefeld to nine years and six months of
incarceration. Mr. Beckefeld alleges that he was sent from Kentucky to Indiana
pursuant to the Interstate Agreement on Detainees and that the State of Indiana
violated the agreement by failing to send him back to Kentucky after his criminal
charges were resolved. Habeas corpus petitions are subject to a strict one-year
statute of limitations.1 There are four possible dates from which the limitation

The statute of limitations for habeas corpus cases is set out in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) which
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;
1

period can begin to run. Nothing in Mr. Beckefeld’s petition indicates that state
action impeded him from filing a habeas corpus petition sooner or that his claims
are based on a newly recognized constitutional right. Therefore sections
2244(d)(1)(B) and (C) don’t apply here.
Either 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A) or (D) applies, depending on which date is
later. Because Mr. Beckefeld didn’t file any state court challenge to his
conviction, his conviction became final for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A)
when the time for filing an appeal expired on December 13, 2012. See Ind. App.
R. 9(A) (appeal must be filed with the Indiana Court of Appeals within 30 days of
trial court’s judgment); Gonzalez v. Thayer, 565 U.S. 134, 150 (2012) (when a
state prisoner does not complete all levels of direct review, his conviction
becomes final for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A) when the time for seeking
such review expires). Mr. Beckefeld alleges that, after his sentencing, he was sent
to Reception Diagnostic Center for classification, and, on November 21, 2012, he
was sent to Pendleton Correctional Facility in Pendleton, Indiana. Mr. Beckefeld
should have known of the State of Indiana’s alleged failure to comply with the
interstate agreement – the factual predicate of his claim – by November 21, 2012.
Therefore, the federal limitations period began to run on December 13, 2012, the
(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.

2

later of the two dates. Absent any period of tolling, the federal limitations period
expired one year later, on December 13, 2013. When Mr. Beckefeld filed his
petition on November 30, 2017, he was nearly four years too late. Mr. Beckefeld’s
petition is untimely and so must be denied.
Under Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 11, the court must consider
whether to grant or deny a certificate of appealability. To obtain a certificate of
appealability when a petition is dismissed on procedural grounds, the petitioner
must show that reasonable jurists would find it debatable (1) whether the court
was correct in its procedural ruling and (2) whether the petition states a valid
claim for denial of a constitutional right. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000). There is no basis for finding that reasonable jurists would debate the
correctness of today’s procedural ruling; four years is a long time to be late.
Therefore, there is no basis for encouraging Mr. Beckefeld to proceed further,
and a certificate of appealability is denied. For the same reasons, he cannot
appeal in forma pauperis because an appeal could not be taken in good faith.
For these reasons, the court:
(1) DENIES the petition (ECF 2) pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas
Corpus Rule 4 because it is untimely;
(2) DENIES Drew A. Beckefeld a certificate of appealability pursuant
to Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 11;
(3) DENIES Drew A. Beckefeld leave to appeal in forma pauperis
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); and
(4) DIRECTS the clerk to enter judgment accordingly.

3

SO ORDERED.
Date: December 8 , 2017

/s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr.
Judge
United States District Court

4