Page v. Belleque

Filing 38

Opinion & Order: Petitioner's habeas corpus petition 1 is DENIED, and this proceeding is DISMISSED, with prejudice. Signed on 2/9/09 by Judge Malcolm F. Marsh. (gm)

IN THE UNITED STATES D I S T R I C T COURT FOR THE D I S T R I C T OF OREGON ROBERT J . PAGE, Petitioner, CV. 0 7 - 2 8 7 - M A OPINION AND ORDER

v.
BRIAN BELLEQUE, Respondent. Mark Bennett weintraub Assistant Federal Public Defender 1 5 1 W. 7 t h A v e n u e , S u i t e 5 1 0 Eugene, Oregon 97401 Attorney for Petitioner J o h n R. K r o g e r Attorney General L e s t e r R. H u n t s i n g e r Senior Assistant Attorney General Department of Justice 1162 Court Street N.E. Salem, Oregon 97301-4096 Attorneys for Respondent MARSH, J u d g e Petitioner, an inmate at the Oregon State Penitentiary, brings t h i s habeas corpus proceeding pursuant t o 28 U.S.C. 1 - - OPINION AND ORDER
§

2254.

For

the r e a s o n s s e t f o r t h b e l o w , t h e p e t i t i o n i s d e n i e d o n t h e b a s i s that i t is untimely.
BACKGROUND

On J u n e 9 , 1 9 9 7 , p e t i t i o n e r w a s c o n v i c t e d o f K i d n a p i n g i n t h e First Degree, and Assault in the Fourth Degree. a direct appeal. Petitioner filed

The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed from the State v. Page, 328 Or. 115

bench, and the Oregon Supreme Court denied review. 156 Or. App. (1998) . The 399, 967 P.2d 530 (1998),

rev. denied,

appellate

judgment

issued on

January 15,

1999.

(Resp. Exh. 107.) On F e b r u a r y 4 , 1 9 9 9 , p e t i t i o n e r s i g n e d a p e t i t i o n f o r p o s t conviction relief. 1 The state trial court denied relief, the

Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed without opinion, and the Oregon Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the post-conviction court in a written decision. 2004. The appellate judgment issued on March 15, The U.S. Supreme Court denied c e r t i o r a r i 336 O r . 3 7 9 , 84 P . 3 d 133

(Resp. Exh. 134.)

on October 4, 2004.

Page v. Palmateer,

(2004), c e r t . denied, 543 U.S. 866 (2004). On May 1 9 , 2 0 0 5 , p e t i t i o n e r s i g n e d a s u c c e s s i v e p e t i t i o n f o r post-conviction r e l i e f relying upon the Supreme Court decision in Blakely v. Washington, 541 U.S. 27 (2004). The trial court

1 For purposes of calculating whether petitioner's habeas petition i s timely, I have given him the benefit of the mailbox rule as to all of his pro se filings. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270-71 (1988).

2 - - OPINION AND ORDER

dismissed

the

petition,

the

Oregon

Court

of

Appealsˇ affirmed The

without opinion, and the Oregon Supreme Court denied review. appellate judgment issued on January 17, 2007.
DISCUSSION

(Resp. Exh. 144.)

Pursuant t o 28

U. S . C .

§

2244 (d) (1),

a

one-year period of

limitation applies to an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed "by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court." The l i m i t a t i o n period runs from the l a t e s t of-

(A) t h e d a t e o n w h i c h t h e j u d g m e n t b e c a m e f i n a l b y the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review; (E) t h e d a t e o n w h i c h t h e i m p e d i m e n t t o f i l i n g a n application created by State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States i s removed, i f the applicant was prevented from f i l i n g by such State action; (C) t h e d a t e o n w h i c h t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t a s s e r t e d was i n i t i a l l y recognized by the Supreme Court, i f the right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made r e t r o a c t i v e l y applicable t o cases on collateral review; or
(D) t h e d a t e o n w h i c h t h e f a c t u a l p r e d i c a t e o f t h e claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d) (1) .

The p a r t i e s agree t h a t the limitation period did not begin to run in this case until the conclusion of petitioner's f i r s t state post-conviction proceeding. However, the parties differ as to

whether the l i m i t a t i o n period began t o run when the s t a t e a p p e l l a t e judgment issued in the post-conviction proceeding, or months l a t e r

3 - - OPINION AND ORDER

when t h e U . S . S u p r e m e C o u r t d e n i e d c e r t i o r a r i . recently answered this question,

The Supreme Court

concluding that the limitation

period is not tolled during the pendency of certiorari in a state collateral proceeding. (2007) . Hence, the limitation period in t h i s case began to run on Assuming Lawrence v. Florida, 549 U.S. 327, 332-34

March 15, 2004, when the s t a t e a p p e l l a t e judgment issued.

that the second post-conviction proceeding tolled the limitations, i t w a s n o t f i l e d u n t i l May 1 9 , 2 0 0 5 . A t o t a l of 430 days accrued

between the time the appellate judgment issued in the f i r s t postconviction proceeding, conviction proceeding. date the appellate and the filing of the second state postAn a d d i t i o n a l 3 7 d a y s a c c r u e d b e t w e e n t h e issued in the second state post-

judgment

conviction proceeding, and the filing of this case, for a total of 467. Accordingly, p e t i t i o n e r ' s habeas p e t i t i o n was f i l e d 102 days Petitioner provides no basis for Accordingly, the petition is

beyond the limitation period. equitable tolling denied as untimely. in this

case.

III III III III III III
4 - - O P I N I O N AND ORDER

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing,

petitioner's habeas corpus petition

( # 1 ) i s DENIED, a n d t h i s p r o c e e d i n g i s D I S M I S S E D , w i t h p r e j u d i c e . I T I S SO ORDERED. DATED t h i s

?

day of February, 2009.

Malcolm F. Marsh United States District Judge

5 - - OPINION AND ORDER