Opinion
Civil Action 99-1085-CB-M
June 20, 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 Willie V. Major pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d).
Petitioner was convicted of murder in the Circuit Court of Mobile County on April 26, 1996 for which he received life in the state penitentiary (Doc. 1). Major appealed the conviction, which was affirmed by the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals in a memorandum opinion ( see Doc. 15, Exhibit A, p. 4). The certificate of final judgment was issued on October 21, 1996 ( see Id.).
Petitioner filed a Rule 32 petition on May 27, 1997 (Doc. 15, Exhibit B, pp. 13-27). Following the denial of the petition by the lower court, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the denial, finding the claims to be of no merit (Doc. 15, Exhibit C). On November 10, 1998, the certificate of final judgment was issued (Doc. 15, Exhibit D).
Petitioner filed a complaint with this Court on November 16, 1999 raising the following claims: (1) The trial judge had a conflict of interest which should have kept him from trying the case; (2) Major's trial and appellate attorneys rendered ineffective assistance; and (3) Petitioner's right against self-incrimination was violated (Doc. 9).
Respondent states that Petitioner did not file this complaint until February 10, 2000 (Doc. 15, p. 2). The record demonstrates that Major filed this action in the Middle District of Alabama on November 16, 1999 (Doc. 1). The action was subsequently transferred to this Court (Doc. 4). On February 10, 2000, Petitioner filed a habeas petition which was on this Court's form (Doc. 9). Nevertheless, in computing how long Major took to file this action, the original filing date of November 16, 1999 is the appropriate date to consider.
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. 15, pp. 3-5). 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. § 2254. 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). Petitioner's conviction became final on October 21, 1996, the day on which the certificate of judgment was entered on the appeal of his conviction. As such, Major's conviction became final after the effective date of the AEDPA and he had one year from October 21, 1996 to file a federal habeas petition.
This action was not filed until November 16, 1999, more than two years after the one-year limitation period had expired. However, Major had filed a Rule 32 petition in state court on May 27, 1997 which is 212 days after his conviction became final. The Court notes that AEDPA states that "[t]he time during which a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending shall not be counted toward any period of limitation under this subsection." 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(2).
The evidence demonstrates that Petitioner used two hundred twelve days of his one-year limitation period to file his State Rule 32 petition; this left a period of one hundred forty-three days during which Major needed to file his federal habeas petition at the completion of his State Rule 32 action. The state did not finish with Major's Rule 32 until November 10, 1998. This means that Petitioner should have filed his federal habeas petition no later than April 2, 1999. Major did not file until November 16, 1999, more than seven months too late.
Clearly, Petitioner'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 Halt and against Petitioner Willie V. Major on all claims.