Holmes v. State of Missouri
Filing
5
OPINION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED as untimely. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability. A separate Order of Dismissal will be filed forthwith. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Autrey on 2/19/14. (CLA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
GLEN M. HOLMES, JR.,
Petitioner,
v.
ELLIS MCSWAIN, JR.,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 4:13CV2258 HEA
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on its own motion. On January 17, 2014, the
Court ordered petitioner to show cause no later than February 7, 2014, why this action
should not be dismissed as time-barred. Petitioner has failed to respond, and the
Court will dismiss this action without further proceedings.
Petitioner was convicted of possession of a controlled substance and possession
of not more than 35 grams of marijuana after a bench trial in front of Judge Timothy
J. Wilson. See State v. Holmes, Case No. 22021-01806-01. On August 19, 2004,
Judge Wilson sentenced petitioner to two concurrent terms of three years and one
term of one year. The court then suspended the execution of the sentence (“SES”)
and placed petitioner on probation for two years. At that time, petitioner did not
appeal his conviction or sentence or file a timely motion for post-conviction relief.
The court revoked petitioner’s probation on March 1, 2007. Petitioner did not
file his first post-conviction relief motion until April 5, 2007, pursuant to Missouri
Rule 24.035, which was denied on December 30, 2011. See Holmes v. State, Case
No. 0722-CC01098. Petitioner appealed the denial of the post-conviction motion,
and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court on October 15, 2012. See
Holmes v. State, No. ED98028 (Mo. Ct. App.). The appellate court issued its
mandate on November 8, 2012. Petitioner is not currently incarcerated.
In the instant petition, petitioner argues that his conviction was obtained as a
result of an unlawful arrest. Specifically, petitioner references the testimony of
Officer Shell Sharp, one of the arresting officers, whose credibility has since been
attacked by various authorities.
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United States District
Courts provides that a district court shall summarily dismiss a § 2254 petition if it
plainly appears that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.
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;
-2-
(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.
Under Missouri law a suspended execution of sentence is an entry of judgment,
because the sentence has been assessed and only the act of executing the sentence has
been suspended. E.g., State v. Nelson, 9 S .W.3d 687, 688 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999). The
time for filing a direct appeal of the judgment expired ten days after the judgment was
entered. Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 30.01(d). As a result, petitioner’s judgment became final
on August 29, 2004. Because petitioner did not file an appeal or motion for postconviction relief within the one-year period, the limitations period for filing a federal
habeas petition expired on August 29, 2005. The petition is, therefore, time-barred.
Finally, petitioner has failed to demonstrate that jurists of reason would find
it debatable whether the petition is untimely. Thus, the Court will not issue a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).
Accordingly,
-3-
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED as untimely.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will not issue a certificate of
appealability.
A separate Order of Dismissal will be filed forthwith.
Dated this 19th day of February, 2014.
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-4-
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?