Barton v. Johnson
Filing
22
MEMORANDUM OPINION re: Motion to Dismiss. (see Order for details) Signed by District Judge Claude M. Hilton on 10/15/09. copy mailed; yes(tfitz, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division
Shawn C. Barton, Petitioner,
v.
) )
)
f
OCT I 5 2009
CLERK. U.S~ofGlf;\-.;: ' ~ \r
l:08cvll44(CMH/JFA)
Gene Johnson, Respondent.
) )
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Shawn C. Barton, a Virginia inmate proceeding pjo se, has filed a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the validity of his conviction in the Circuit Court for the City of Chesapeake, Virginia. On April 22,2009, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss
and Rule 5 Answer, along with a supporting brief. Barton was given the opportunity to file
responsive materials, pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), and he has
opted not to file a response. For the reasons that follow, Barton's claims must be dismissed.
I.
Pursuant to a final judgment dated December 13, 2004, Barton was convicted following a jury trial of robbery and use of a firearm in the commission of a robbery, and was sentenced to a total
of thirteen (13) years in prison. Resp. Ex. 1. Barton filed a direct appeal in the Virginia Court of
Appeals, which denied his petition for appeal on August 11, 2005. Resp. Ex. 2. After an initial attempt to petition for further review was dismissed for failure to file a notice of appeal, Resp. Ex.
3, Barton sought and was granted a belated appeal by the Virginia Supreme Court. Resp. Ex. 4. The
Supreme Court refused the appeal on March 15, 2007. Resp. Ex. 5.
On May 7,2007, Barton submitted a petition for a state writ of habeas corpus to the Virginia
Supreme Court, arguing that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. Resp. Ex. 6.
After consideration, the Court denied Barton's claims on the merits in an Order dated October 5,
2007. Resp. Ex. 6. This federal proceeding was commenced in October, 2008.
II.
As the respondent argues in his motion to dismiss, this petition for § 2254 relief is subject to dismissal as time-barred. A petition for a writ of habeas corpus must be dismissed if filed later
than one year after (1) the judgment becomes final; (2) any state-created impediment to filing a petition is removed; (3) the United States Supreme Court recognizes the constitutional right asserted; or (4) the factual predicate of the claim could have been discovered with due diligence. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(d)(l)(A)-(D), as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
("AEDPA"). As Barton makes no allegation of state-created impediment, newly-recognized
constitutional right, or newly-discovered evidence, the limitations period began to run in this case
on the date the conviction at issue became final. Since the Virginia Supreme Court refused Barton's
direct appeal on March 15,2007,' the conviction became final on June 13,2007, the last date Barton
could have petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari.2
1 Review by the Supreme Court of Virginia constituted "direct review" for purposes of the
AEDPA, despite the fact that leave to pursue that appeal was obtained through a collateral proceeding. Frasch v. Peguese, 414 F.3d 518 (4th Cir. 2005)(applying Maryland law). 2 See U.S. Sup. Ct. R. 13(1) (petitions for review are timely filed within 90 days of the entry of
judgment bv a state court of last resort): see also Lawrence v. Florida. 127 S. Ct. 1079, 1083(2007)
(reaffirming the inclusion of time for seeking review by the Supreme Court in calculating when
direct review of a state criminal conviction becomes final under § 2244(d)).
ps§§0[ puE durejs sjBp b qjiM psdurejs si jibui ib§3| jeqj jjABpijjB sjBJBdss b ui suiBjdxs 'usa\o "H 'II
xsssns jb JOSiAJodns uioojubjaj sqi "8 *3 dssy -Suissaooad joj iuoojjibiu sqj oj psasAipp U3qj si
pue 'iub 00:S inoqB jb Siuiuoiu Xbp>|33a\ qoB3 p3i03[[OD si XjjipBj )Bqi ib uisjsXs [ibiu sqj u; psouid [ibiu icqj §uijs3)jb jiABpyje ub papiAOjd sbi[ 'uosuj sjbjs H xsssns 'uou
JO 30B|d S(UO}JBa JB X}UnO3S JO J3iq3 PUB JOfBJAJ SUOIPS-UOQ 3qj '3JOIU||9 X UBAt
·3SJBJ SBM U01JBiB|03p S.UOyEg ]Bqi X|3AISBnSJ3d SSJBOipUl IJOiq/A 30U3piA3
psjliuiqns seq juspuodssj 'jsasavoh "(pousd suojibjiuiji aqj jo ijbjs sqjjo sjsp ajbsjsaiuub aqj s;
uoijob X[3lu;j b Sujininsu; joj Xsp jsbj sqj jBqj os 'pousd suoiiB}iiui[ VJCI3V SuijBinoiBO ui (b)9 'j
·a|o -y -psj Su;X[ddB)(0003 '*]D Mlt?) 6£t? '9£P PC'd S,Zl '[Rmpibj -a zapuBiusn 33S (l)(P)t'^cc
§ japun X[3iu;j sq pjnoA\ j; XBp 3[qissod jsb| sqj uo ji uSu[iij,, snqi 'p [ jb -jsj *8002 'S Jsqojoo uo
gui||Biu aoj saijuoqjnB uosud oj ji p3i3Ai|9p sq jBqj Ajnfj3djoXj|BU3d japun psuspsp uojJBg 'uoijijad
siq jo sobj sqj uo '(8861) 993 'S'fl Z.81? iyP*l. >A uojsnon ospTSss t(i66l 'J!3 Wfr) £CA P3"d
/_t76 'jtd3a 33i[0d puoiuqoiyjo Aj)3 'A siMsq -siBpiyo uosud oj Su)pB3[d siq sjaAipp jsuosud sqj
usqA\ ps( ij p3UJ33p si uoijijsd b 'suoijBjiiuq jo sjnjBjs VdO3V 3MJ SuijBin3|B0 jo sssodand joj
·uojjjjad 17532 § Apimj b sjij oj '8003 'S
[ijun ao 'jbsX suo pBq uojjbq l(l)(P)i7t732 § °1 JUBnsjnd 'ajojsasqj^ 7,003 'S J3C1OPO uo
pue pssnjsj sbav q3|qM '/.003 'A ^Viuo B5u!Sj!A J° W"0D auisjdns sqj ui uoijBoqddB SBsqsq sjbjs b
p3|tj uojJBg 'jbuij suiBosq uoijoiauoojo jusiuSpnf sqj 3JOj3q '3J3H '(sy000 31B1S ^ p3J3Jdj3jui sb
a\b| sjBjs siqBoijddB sqj uo pssBq si '(3)(P)t7^33 § ^ paJjnbai sb 'sSuipasooad [bjsjbhoo sjbjs l(p3[ij
Xpsdojd,, jo uoijtuijsp sqj JBqj Suiuiuusjap) ($003) 801? 'S'd toS 'oiupqBnoia a 33Bd t(3)(p)t7g33
§ OSTl 83 s^S "Suipusd 3J9a\ asuojjjjsd Xq pgnsund s3u]p330oad |bj3Jbi|O3 sjbjs qoiqM Suunp
oiuij sqj spnpxs jsnui yno3 sqj 'J3A3A\oq 'poiasd suoubj;uhj jbsX-suo sqj §uijB|noiB0 u]
into a ledger book, which indicates the date the correspondence is mailed, the name and inmate number of the sender, and the name of the addressee. Resp. Ex. 7. On weekdays, inmate mail is processed and delivered to the post office on the same day it is received by the mailroom. Inmate
mail received by the mailroom on a weekend is processed the next business day. ]d.
Mailroom
Supervisor Owen reviewed the outgoing legal mail logbook and determined that Barton mailed an item to the Clerk of this Court on October 22, 2008. Resp. Ex. 7. Based upon this information, respondent asserts that the earliest date on which Barton could have delivered his federal petition to
prison authorities for mailing was October 21,2008, the day before it was processed and delivered
to the post office.3
In addition to the foregoing evidence supplied by the respondent, the Court notes that Barton's petition was received by the Clerk on October 29, 2008. See Docket # 1, Envelope. That
date is wholly consistent with the facts as presented by respondent, and it
is inconsistent with
Barton's declaration that he provided the petition to prison authorities on October 5, 2008, three weeks before its receipt by the Court. Moreover, as noted above, petitioner was informed of his right to respond to respondent's motion to dismiss this petition, and he has failed to come forward with any evidence or argument to rebut the respondent's position that the petition is time-barred. Lastly, it is noted that Barton included no facts or arguments to attempt excuse its untimely filing in the
appropriate section of the petition itself. Pet. at 1| 18. Accordingly, because the limitations period of § 2244 (d) expired in this case on October 5, 2008, and because it has been demonstrated to the
Court's satisfaction that the petition was not delivered to prison authorities on or before that date,
the petition is time-barred from federal consideration on the merits.
3The Court notes that October 22, 2008 fell on Wednesday, a weekday.
4
III.
For the foregoing reasons, this petition will be dismissed as untimely filed. An appropriate
Order shall issue.
Entered this /5>^ day of d2b3£ZL_
2009.
Claude M. Hilton
JsL
Alexandria, Virginia
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?