Younger v. State of Missouri

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition is DISMISSED. An Order of Dismissal will be filed with this Memorandum and Order.. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 1/16/13. (LGK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
JAMES YOUNGER,
Petitioner,
v.
STATE OF MISSOURI,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:12CV2187 RWS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before me on petitioner’s response to my order to show cause
why this action should not be dismissed as time-barred. Petitioner’s response fails
to demonstrate that the untimeliness should be excused. As a result, I will dismiss the
petition under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases.
The Petition
Petitioner says that he pled guilty to first degree sodomy and was sentenced to
ten years’ imprisonment on April 13, 1999. Petitioner did not file an appeal from his
judgment and conviction. Nor did petitioner file a motion for postconviction relief.
Petitioner did not file a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus either. After his
prison term ended, petitioner was found to be a sexually violent predator (“SVP”)
under Missouri law, and he is now civilly confined in Fulton State Hospital.

Petitioner now alleges that he was deprived of effective counsel, that a DNA
test should have been conducted, that evidence was destroyed before the trial, and
that the victim was coached on the stand. Petitioner states that the petition is
untimely because the public defender never told him there were time limits for filing
appeals or habeas petitions.
Discussion
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d):
(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-

In Missouri, the time for filing a direct appeal expires ten days after the
judgment is entered. Mo. R. Crim. P. 30.01(d). As a result, the one-year period of
limitations under § 2244(d)(1)(A) expired in April 2000. In addition, none of the
circumstances listed in § 2244(d)(1)(B)-(D) apply to the instant petition. As a result,
the petition is untimely, and the petition must be dismissed pursuant to § 2244(d).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition is DISMISSED.
An Order of Dismissal will be filed with this Memorandum and Order.
Dated this 16th day of January, 2013.

RODNEY W. SIPPEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-