Tielleman v. Bishop et al

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Levi Russell, III on 3/26/2019. (c/m 3/26/19 bas, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
ROBERT LESTER TIELLEMAN,
Petitioner,

*
*

v.

*

Civil Action No. GLR-16-3478

FRANK BISHOP, JR., et al.,

*

Respondents.

*
*****
MEMORANDUM OPINION

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner Robert Lester Tielleman’s Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2018). No hearing
is necessary for the disposition of the Petition. See Rule 8(a), Rules Governing Section
2254 Cases in the United States District Courts; Local Rule 105.6 (D.Md. 2018); see also
Fisher v. Lee, 215 F.3d 438, 455 (4th Cir. 2000) (stating that a petitioner is not entitled to
a hearing under 28 U.S.C. §2254(e)(2)). For the reasons that follow, the Court will dismiss
the Petition as untimely and decline to issue a certificate of appealability.
I.

BACKGROUND

On January 28, 2013, a jury in the Circuit Court for Caroline County, Maryland
found Tielleman guilty of two counts of attempted kidnapping, two counts of first-degree
assault, reckless endangerment, and unlawful possession of a firearm. (Resp’ts’ Resp. Ex.
1 at 11–13, ECF No. 5-1). On April 10, 2013, Tielleman was sentenced to serve an
aggregated term of eighty years. (Id. at 11, 13–15). On April 19, 2013, Tielleman filed a
notice of appeal and elected for an en banc review. (Id. at 15, 17). On October 11, 2013, a

three-judge panel reviewed Tielleman’s sentence, which resulted in a reduction of his
overall sentence to sixty years. (Id. at 17–21).
On May 21, 2014, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals affirmed Tielleman’s
conviction. (Resp’ts’ Resp. Ex. 2 at 6, ECF No. 5-2). The appellate court concluded that
Tielleman’s claim that the evidence was not legally sufficient to support a conviction for
charges of being a felon in possession of a firearm was not preserved for its review, (id. at
2–4), and that the State did not withhold Brady1 evidence when it failed to disclose that a
witness for the State had been convicted of stalking, a misdemeanor offense under
Maryland law, (id. at 4–7).
The Court of Appeals denied Tielleman’s petition for writ of certiorari on August
28, 2014. (Id. at 8). The time for Tielleman to seek certiorari review from the United States
Supreme Court expired on November 26, 2014, ninety days after the date of the Court of
Appeals’ decision. See Sup.Ct.R. 13.1.
At the time he filed his Petition in this Court, Tielleman had not filed a petition for
post-conviction relief with the Circuit Court. Instead, he filed a motion to correct illegal
sentence on June 10, 2015, which was denied on June 25, 2015; Tielleman did not file a
timely notice of appeal for the denial of this motion.2 (Resp’ts’ Resp. Ex. 1 at 21–22).

1

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963).
Tielleman filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Court of Appeals of
Maryland, but it did not concern an appeal that was then pending in his case. (Resp’ts’
Resp. Ex. 3 at 1–11, ECF No. 5-3). The Court of Appeals denied the petition on April 25,
2016. (Id. at 12). Tiellman filed a motion for reconsideration of that denial, which the court
denied on August 22, 2016. (Id. at 13). For purposes of the timeliness of Tielleman’s
Petition in this Court, these filings do not toll the limitations period as they were not
properly filed.
2

2

On October 17, 2016, Tiellman filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (ECF
No. 1). In his Petition, Tielleman asserts two grounds for federal habeas relief: (1) the
Circuit Court erred in adding an element to the offense of attempted kidnapping and in
denying a merger as to the two counts, (Pet. Writ Habeas Corpus [“Pet.”] at 5–6, ECF No.
1);3 and (2) the Circuit Court erred when it failed to apply the “rule of lenity” which was
required because Maryland’s kidnapping statute does not indicate “whether the Maryland
General Assembly intended that a defendant be twice punished for two offenses stemming
from a single transaction of kidnapping,” (id. at 6). As relief, Tielleman seeks vacatur of
the two consecutive thirty-year sentences and imposition of concurrent thirty-year
sentences. (Id. at 7).
On February 23, 2017, Respondents filed a Limited Answer to Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus and Order to Show Cause. (ECF No. 5). In their Answer, Respondents
assert that Tiellman’s Petition must be dismissed because it is untimely and raises no basis
for equitable tolling of the limitations period. On March 13, 2017, the Court entered an
Order granting Tiellman twenty-eight days to file a Reply addressing why his Petition is

Tielleman was convicted of attempting to kidnap two minor girls whose dates of
birth fell in April and July of 1997, respectively. (Pet. at 5). He reasons that double jeopardy
is violated when a person is punished twice for the same crime; the elements for the offense
of kidnapping are the same for each count of the indictment; and the trial court incorrectly
denied a merger on the convictions for these two counts because the two victims had
different dates of birth. (Id.). He states that the victims’ dates of birth are not elements of
the kidnapping offense. (Id. at 6). The Court notes that Tielleman’s argument is nonsensical
and disregards the fact that there were two victims, both of whom he was found guilty of
attempting to kidnap.
3

3

not time-barred. (Mar. 13, 2017 Order at 1–2, ECF No. 7). Tiellman filed his Court-ordered
Reply on April 3, 2017. (ECF No. 8).
II.
A.

DISCUSSION

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
A one-year statute of limitations applies to habeas petitions in non-capital cases for

a person convicted in a state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). This section 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.
Id.
4

“[T]he one-year limitation period is also subject to equitable tolling in ‘those rare
instances where—due to circumstances external to the party’s own conduct—it would be
unconscionable to enforce the limitation against the party and gross injustice would
result.’” Hill v. Braxton, 277 F.3d 701, 704 (4th Cir. 2002) (citing Harris v. Hutchinson,
209 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2000)). To be entitled to equitable tolling, a federal habeas
petitioner must establish that either some wrongful conduct by respondents contributed to
his delay in filing his petition or that circumstances beyond his control caused the delay.
See Harris, 209 F.3d at 330. A federal habeas petition does not toll the one-year limitation
period. See Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 175 (2001) (noting that a federal habeas
petition is not an application for state post-conviction or other collateral review within the
meaning of § 2244(d)(2), and therefore it does not toll the limitation period while it is
pending).
In this case, Tielleman’s conviction was final on November 26, 2014. The one-year
filing deadline was tolled from June 10, 2015 to July 25, 2015, while Tielleman’s motion
to correct illegal sentence was pending, allowing for the thirty-day period in which
Tielleman could have filed a notice of appeal. Thus, the deadline for Tielleman to seek
federal habeas relief in this Court expired on January 11, 2016.4 Tielleman filed his Petition
with on October 12, 2016—nine months after the deadline.

4

The expiration date noted takes into account the forty-five days during which
Tielleman’s motion to correct illegal sentence was either pending or Tielleman had the
opportunity to file a notice of appeal. Further, the actual date of expiration, January 10,
2016, falls on a Sunday; therefore, the first available date for filing a petition with this
Court would have been the following day, Monday, January 11, 2016.
5

With regard to equitable tolling, Tielleman asserts that “at the time his conviction
became final, . . . he was illiterate to the fact that his sentence was [i]nherently illegal
(having little or no formal education or the ability to comprehend).” (Petr.’s Reply at 1,
ECF No. 8; see also Pet. Writ Habeas Corpus at 4, ECF No. 1). Tiellman asks the Court to
find that this constitutes an extraordinary circumstance warranting equitable tolling of the
limitations period. (Petr.’s Reply at 1).
Importantly, Tielleman does not assert that he was or is illiterate, i.e., that he cannot
read or write. Furthermore, it is clear from the record that Tielleman has the ability to file
pleadings on his own behalf. This is not a case where the petitioner, due to circumstances
entirely beyond his control, was incapable of accessing the courts for purposes of
challenging the validity of his conviction. Nor does this Court find that it would be
unconscionable to enforce the limitation period in this instance. See Hill, 277 F.3d at 704.
There is nothing in this record to indicate that wrongful conduct attributable to the State
contributed to Tielleman’s nine-month delay in seeking federal habeas relief. See Harris,
209 F.3d at 330. Because Tiellman’s Petition is untimely and not subject to equitable
tolling, the Court will dismiss the Petition.
B.

Certificate of Appealability
When a district court dismisses a habeas petition solely on procedural grounds, a

certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both: (1)
“that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of
the denial of a constitutional right”; and (2) “that jurists of reason would find it debatable
whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676,
6

684 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). Because
Tiellman fails to satisfy either one of these standards, the Court will decline to issue a
Certificate of Appealability. Tiellman may still request that the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issue such a certificate. See Lyons v. Lee, 316 F.3d 528,
532 (4th Cir. 2003) (considering whether to grant a certificate of appealability after the
district court declined to issue one).
III.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court will dismiss Tiellman’s Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus as untimely and decline to issue a Certificate of Appealability. A separate
Order follows.
Entered this 26th of March, 2019.
/s/
__________________________
George L. Russell, III
United States District Judge

7