Opinion
Civil Action 99-0721-BH-M
June 8, 2000
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This is an action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by an Alabama inmate which was referred for report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Local Rule 72.2(c)(4), and Rule 8 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. This action is now ready for consideration. The state record is adequate to determine Petitioner's claims; no federal evidentiary hearing is required. It is recommended that this habeas petition be dismissed as time barred and that judgment be entered in favor of Respondent Arnold Holt and against Petitioner Robert James Davenport pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).
Petitioner was convicted of two counts of rape first degree and one count of sexual abuse first degree in the Circuit Court of Washington County on May 10, 1994 for which he received twenty-five years on each rape count and two years on the sexual abuse count, to be served concurrently, in the state penitentiary (Doc. 1). Davenport appealed the conviction which was affirmed by the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals. Davenport v. State, 653 So.2d 1006 (Ala.Crim.App. 1994). Petitioner sought no other relief from his conviction until he filed a federal habeas complaint on June 30, 1999, raising the following claims: (1) He should have been given a psychiatric examination; and (2) the trial judge failed to give certain requested jury charges (Doc. 1).
Respondent has answered the petition, arguing that it should be dismissed as it was not filed within the one-year statute of limitations period (Doc. 11, pp. 6-7). Respondent refers to provisions of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (hereinafter AEDPA) which amended, in pertinent part, 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Doc. 13). The specific provision states as follows:
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 the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review.28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A).
The AEDPA became effective on April 24, 1996. Goodman v. United States, 151 F.3d 1335, 1336 (11th Cir. 1998). The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that the one-year limitations period would begin to run on that date, April 24, 1996, for potential habeas petitioners whose convictions had already become final by way of direct review. Goodman, 151 F.3d at 1337; Wilcox v. Florida Dept. of Corrections, 158 F.3d 1209, 1211 (11th Cir. 1998). In other words, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals established a "grace period" through April 23, 1997 so that federal and state criminal defendants would not lose the opportunity to seek federal habeas review.
Petitioner's conviction became final in January 1995, when the time expired for him to petition for writ of certiorari with the Alabama supreme Court. As such, Davenport's conviction became final prior to the effective date of the AEDPA.
Petitioner's habeas corpus petition was not filed until June 30, 1999, more than two years after the grace period had expired. Clearly, Davenport's habeas corpus petition was filed well beyond the one-year grace period and filed in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). The Court finds that Petitioner has provided no cause for ignoring the dictates of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996: this action is time-barred.
For the reasoning stated herein, it is recommended that this habeas petition be dismissed as time-barred and that judgment be entered in favor of Respondent Arnold Holt and against Petitioner Robert James Davenport on all claims.