Bond v. Warden Oliver
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 11/27/2017. (c/m 11/28/2017 tds, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUIHFOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND:
DA VII) .J. BOND,
zn 11 NOV 21 P 2: 3 3
GWEN DOL YN OLIVER and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OFTHE
STATE OF MARYLAND
Case No.: G,JH-17-2~81
On August 26. 2017.
habeas corpus petition attacking
Circuit Court tor Baltimore
hearing is necessary,
David Bond . .Jr. filed the instant 28 U.S.c. ~ 2254
his 2011 conviction
County. lOCI' No, I, Respondents
of the petition.
assault entered in the
tiled an Answer that solely
ECF NO.4. to which Petitioner
replied. lOCI' No, 8, No
Srr Rule 8(a). Rulrs (l(}\'rl'l1ing Srelioll 225-1 Casrs illlhr Ullilrd Slalrs
Dislriel Courls: Local Rule 105,6 (D, Md, 2016): srr also Fishrr \', Lre. 2151', 3d 438. 455 (4th
Cir. 2000) (petitioner
not entitled to a hearing under 28 U.S.c. ~ 2254(e)(2)).
follow. the petition will be denied and dismissed
For the reasons to
IThis is the date Bond signed the Petition. ECF No. 1 at 7. Because Petitioner is incarcerated. he is entitled to the
benefit of the prison mailbox rule. which provides that a prisoner"s tiling of a court document is complete all the
date he or she gives the document to prison officials for mailing. S"(!e IIOUS/Oll \', Lack. 487 U.S. ~66. 270-72 (1988).
On September 2. 20 II. Petitioner was convicted by a jury of second-degree assault in the
Circuit Court lor Baltimore County. ECF NO.4-I at 4. 72 He was sentenced to 10 years
imprisonment. ECI' 4-1 at 4. On October 5.2011. Petitioner Iiled a timely notice of appeal to the
Maryland CouI1 of Special Appeals. ECF No. 4-2 at 6. On the same day. Petitioner tiled a
motion to revise his sentence and an application lor review of his sentence by a three judge
panel. which were denied on October 31. 20 II and January 18. 2012. respectivcly. ECF NO.4-I
The Court of Special Appeals artirmed Petitioner'sjudgment
on February I. 2013 and
issued its mandate on March 4. 2013. ECI' No. 4-2 at I. Because Petitioner did not lile a Petition
for a Writ of Certiorari with the Maryland Court of Appeals. his conviction became final on
March 19. 2013. when his time to do so expired. See 28 U.S.C. ~ 2244(d)(1 )(A) (stating that
judgment is deemed tinal "by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time tor
seeking such review'"): Md. Rule 8-302 (providing that a petition lor writ of certiorari to the
Maryland Court of Appeals must be tiled within 15 days of the issuance of the mandate).
On August 30. 2013. Petitioner filed a Petition t()r Post-Conviction Relief. ECF NO.4-I
at 9. The Petition was denied on October 26. 2015. and Petitioner libl an Application t()r Leave
to Appeal. ECF NO.4-I at 4. On January 21. 2016. while Petitioner's Application was pending.
he filed a Motion for Modification or Reduction of Sentence. ECF NO.4-I at 10. It appears that
the Motion is still pending. Id. The Court of Special Appeals denied Petitioner's Application !()r
Leave to Appeal on December 8. 2016. and its mandate issued on January 9. 2017.
Pin cites 10 documents tiled on the Court"s electronic tiling system (eMlECF) refer to the pnge numbers generated
by thaI syslcl11.
Petitioner filed the instant
* 2254 Petition on August 26. 2017. ECF No.1.
Respondents have answered. asserting that the Petition is untimely because. alier the judgment
became tinal. more than one year had elapsed during which Pctitioner had not properly liled a
petition for collateral review in state court. ECF NO.4. On the Court's instruction. Petitioner
filed a reply. asserting that the Petition is timely because less than one year has elapsed betwecn
the Court of Special Appeals mandate issued on January 9. 2017 and the tiling of his Petition
Title 28 U.S.c.
* 2244(d) provides a one-year statute of limitations
in non-capital cases
for those convictcd in a state case:' This one-year period is tolled while properly filed postconviction proceedings are pending and may otherwise be equitably tolled. See 28 U.S.c.
) 28 U.S. C.
A I-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of
habeas corpus by a person ill custody pursuant to the judgment of a State coull.
The limitation period shall run from the latest of(A)
conclusion of direct review" or the expiration of the time for seeking
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 tiling by
such State action:
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 C011l1 and made retroactively applicable to
cases on collateral review: or
the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims
presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due
the time during \vhich a properly tiled application for State postconviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or
claim is pending shall not be counted toward an)' period of limitation under this
Harris \'. lIlItchinsoll. 209 FJd 325. 328 (4th Cir. 2000).
The statutc of limitations
time for petitioning
began to run in petitioncr's
thc Court of Appcals for a writ of certiorari
Motion for Modification
under 28 U.S.c.
Therc is presently
as ..to thc
onc ycar statute of
relevant case law and
al'l'ealjiled No. 17-7450 (4th Cir.
that this typc of Motion is capablc of tolling thc
period. it docs not toll the limitations
well outside the 90-day pcriod permittcd
~ 2254" atier discussing
that the issue is "opcn to signi ticanl dcbatc").
Oct. 31. 2017). Howevcr.
bccamc tinal). whcn
See Mitchell \'. Greell. No. DKC-13-2063.
qucstion of whether a motion undcr Md. Rule 4-345 tolls the [statutc's]
Pctitioncr did not tilc
which appears unrcsolved.
as a state collateral
period under ~ 2244(d)(2).
at *3-8 (D. Md. Oct. 11.2017)
Whilc the Pctition was pcnding. Pctitioncr
dcbate about whether this type of Motion qualitics
tolling thc limitations
until August 30. 2013 (164 days atier the conviction
he filed his Pctition for Post-Conviction
casc on March 19.2013.
period in this casc bccause the Motion was tiled
by Md. Rule 4-345. mcaning that the Motion is not a
for Statc post-conviction
or other collateral
Thus. thc limitations
2017. while Petitioner's
period was tolled only betwcen August 30. 2013 and January 9.
courts. The accrual of thc one year limitations
period resumcd on January
expired 201 days latcr on July 30. 2017. Therefore.
August 26. 2017. was untimely
werc pending in thc trial and appellate
10. 20 17. and it
thc instant Petition. which was tiled on
tiled 27 days beyond the limitations
In Hollaml \'. Florida. 560 U.S. 631 (20 I0). the Suprcme Court eoncludcd
tolling applies to ~ 2244's
entitled to equitable
at 649. The Court found that in order to be
tolling, the movant must show (1) that he has diligently
and (2) that some extraordinary
pursued his rights
the timely tiling. /d. The question of
tolling applies hinges on the filcts and circumstances
of each particular case.
See lIarris, 209 F.3d at 329-30.
does not argue, nor does the record otherwise
to receive equitable
did not become tinal for purposes of28
statcs that a judgmcnt
~ 2244(d)( I )(A) until aner the state rejected his
is final upon ,.the conclusion
for seeking such revicw'"
~ 2244(d)( 1)(A) (emphasis
one is required to exhaust state remedies
(b)( 1)(A), thc limitations
tolling. Rather, he appears to believe that his judgment
would not count toward the limitations
thc 164 days of inaction in 2013
the statutc, which
of direct revicw or thc cxpiration
of thc lime
is corrcct that
before seeking federal habcas relief: ~ 2254
period accrues oncc the judgment
has a properly
indicate, that he has made the
final and may be toll cd only
pcnding with the statc court.
~~ 2244(d)( I )(A), (2). To the extent that Petitioner would argue that his lack of understanding
the law surrounding
the filing ofa ~ 2254 pctition should entitle him to equitable tolling. it is
well settled that. "evcn in the case ofanunrcprcsentcd
basis for equitable
of the law is not a
a habeas petition solely on procedural
("'COA") will not issue unless the petitioner
'that jurists of reason would lind it debatable
denial of a constitutional
Vllited Slales \".Sma, 364 F.3d 507. 512 (4th Cir. 2004).
When a district court dismisses
both ,.( I)
whether the petition states a valid claim of the
right" and (2) 'that jurists of reason would lind it debatable
district court was correct in its procedural ruling .... ROllsI' v. Lee. 252 F.3d 676. 684 (4th Cir.
2001) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel. 529 U.S. 473. 484 (2000)). A litigant seeking a COA must
demonstrate that a procedural ruling barring relief is itself debatable among jurists of reason:
otherwise. the appeal would not "deserve encouragement to proceed further:' Blick
S, Ct. 759, 777 (2017). Denial ofa COA does not preclude a petitioner from seeking permission
to tile a successive petition or from pursuing his claims upon receiving such permission. Because
Bond has not made a substantial showing of the denial of his constitutional rights. the Court will
not issue a COA.
For the foregoing reasons. the Bond's habeas corpus petition. ECF No. I. shall be denied.
A separate order follows.
GEORGE J. HAZEL
United States District Judge
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?