Opinion
Case No. 99-76345
August 29, 2000
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
Petitioner Richard Lewis Green, a state inmate currently incarcerated at the Macomb Correctional Facility in New Haven, Michigan, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Now before the Court is Respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Comply with the Statute of Limitations. For the reasons set forth below, Respondent's motion is granted.
I. Procedural History
On March 25, 1976, Petitioner pleaded guilty in Wayne County Circuit Court to first-degree criminal sexual conduct. On April 8, 1976, he was sentenced to ten to twenty years imprisonment.
Petitioner appealed his conviction to the Michigan Court of Appeals, which issued an order affirming his conviction on October 17, 1977.People v. Green, No. 29027 (Mich.Ct.App. Oct. 17, 1977). He did not file an application for leave to appeal in the Michigan Supreme Court.
On May 15, 1997, Petitioner filed a motion for relief from judgment in the Wayne County Circuit Court. The trial court denied the motion for relief from judgment. People v. Green, No. 75-086954 (Mich. Sept. 16, 1997).
Petitioner then filed a delayed application for leave to appeal in the Michigan Court of Appeals. On July 9, 1998, the Michigan Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal. People v. Green, No. 208403 (Mich.Ct.App. July 9, 1998). Petitioner next filed a delayed application for leave to appeal in the Michigan Supreme Court, which was also denied. People v. Green, No. 112784 (Mich. March 30, 1999).
On September 15, 1999, Petitioner filed the pending habeas corpus petition presenting the following claims for relief:
I. Defendant was denied the effective assistance of counsel when trial counsel failed to advise defendant that an agreed upon plea bargain would not be honored in Washtenaw County, therefore defendant's plea of guilty in Wayne County was not knowing, understanding and voluntary therefore defendant is entitled to withdraw his plea of guilty as defendant is innocent of the charge of criminal sexual conduct first degree.
II. Defendant is entitled to withdrawal of his guilty plea due to unfulfilled promises made in part by the Wayne and Washtenaw County Circuit Court and prosecutors.
III. M.C.R. 6.500 et seq. does not apply because a state court may not bar review of an issue by retroactively applying a state procedural bar that did not exist at the time of the supposed default.II. Analysis
Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss the pending habeas corpus petition as untimely. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 ("AEDPA" or "the Act") applies to all habeas petitions filed after the effective date of the Act, April 24, 1996. Petitioner's application for habeas corpus relief was filed after April 24, 1996. Therefore, the provisions of the AEDPA, including the limitations period for filing an application for habeas corpus relief, apply to Petitioner's application. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 337 (1997).
Among other amendments, the AEDPA amended 28 U.S.C. § 2244 to include a one-year limitations period within which habeas petitions challenging state court judgments must be filed. In most cases, a prisoner is required to file a federal habeas corpus petition within one year of completing direct review of the habeas claims. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). Where a prisoner's conviction became final prior to the effective date of the AEDPA, the prisoner is permitted one year from the AEDPA's effective date to file a petition for habeas corpus relief in federal court. Austin v. Mitchell, 200 F.3d 391, 393 (6th Cir. 1999).
In the pending case, Petitioner's conviction became final before the AEDPA became effective on April 24, 1996. Therefore, absent state collateral review, Petitioner was required to file his petition for a writ of habeas corpus by April 24, 1997 to comply with the one-year limitations period. Petitioner sought state collateral review of his conviction by filing a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to M.C.R. 6.500. However, he did not file that motion until May 15, 1997, almost one month after the one year limitations period had elapsed. His petition therefore is untimely.
Petitioner also fails to allege that there existed any impediment to his filing a timely application or that his claim involves a newly-recognized constitutional right or newly-discovered facts. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(B) (C). Therefore, Petitioner has failed to present any exceptional circumstances which would warrant equitable tolling of the limitations period.
Accordingly, Petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus is barred by the one-year statute of limitations.
III. Conclusion
The Court concludes that Petitioner failed to file his application for a writ of habeas corpus within the one-year limitations period established by 42 U.S.C. § 2244(d). The Court further concludes that Petitioner failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstances which would warrant equitable tolling of the limitations period.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Respondent's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.