Champs, Marcus v. Pollard, William

Filing 3

JUDGMENT entered denying the petition of Marcus Champs for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 as untimely. (PAO/jef). (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MARCUS CHAMPS,
OPINION AND ORDER
Petitioner,
13-cv-700-bbc
v.
WILLIAM POLLARD, Warden,
WAUPUN CORRECTIONAL
INSTITUTION,
Respondent.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Petitioner Marcus Champs has filed a motion for habeas corpus relief under 28
U.S.C. § 2254, contending that he was denied the effective assistance of both trial and
appellate counsel when he was tried for second degree murder in the 4th District Court,
Hennepin County, Minnesota. He raises five claims: (1) his trial counsel was ineffective in
not challenging the constitutionality of Minnesota’s automatic certificate statute, under
which he was tried as an adult under Minn. Stat. § 260B.101.10; (2) his trial counsel failed
to object to instructions on aiding and abetting, when the state’s theory of prosecution was
that plaintiff was the principal shooter; (3) his appellate counsel was ineffective because he
did not raise a claim of trial court error in admitting certain autopsy photographs of the
victim; (4) his appellate counsel failed to challenge the prosecutor’s improper statements in
discussing petitioner’s burden of proof; and the trial court erred in not proceeding to the

1

second part of the test under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), after the government
had struck an African-American juror.
Petitioner’s motion presents an unusual question of venue because he is challenging
a Minnesota conviction in a Wisconsin court. Interesting as that question may be, however,
it is one I need not reach because petitioner filed his § 2254 petition beyond the time
allowed him. 28 U.S.C. § 2244 sets a one-year period of limitation for applications for writs
of habeas corpus. The time starts running from the latest of four dates: (1) the date on
which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review; (2) the date on which
an impediment to filing created by state action in violation of the Constitution or laws of
the United States was removed, if the applicant was prevented from filing by such action;
(3) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially recognized by the
Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; and (4) the
date on which the factual predicate of the claims could have been discovered had the
applicant exercised due diligence.

According to petitioner’s filing, his conviction was

affirmed by the Minnesota Court of Appeals on February 23, 2010 and his petition for
review was denied by the state supreme court on March 18, 2011. His motion for post
conviction relief was denied on October 10, 2011 by the court in which he was convicted.
Petitioner does not contend that his petition comes within any of the limitations
periods other than the first one, which means that his petition is untimely. His conviction
became final on March 18, 2011, when the Minnesota supreme court denied his petition for
review of the conviction. He filed this federal petition more than 18 months later, on

2

October 7, 2013. Accordingly, I conclude that the petition must be denied as untimely.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that petitioner Marcus Champs’s petition for a writ of habeas
corpus, dkt. #1, is DENIED as untimely. 28 U.S.C. § 2244.
Entered this 15th day of October, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge

3