Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Carroll v. Warden, Central Maryland Correctional Facility

United States District Court, D. Maryland

May 1, 2015

MICHAEL CARROLL, 365628, Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN, CENTRAL MARYLAND CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ROGER W. TITUS, District Judge.

Respondents request dismissal of Michael Carroll's ("Carroll") Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 as time-barred. (ECF No. 4). Petitioner was granted an opportunity to explain why the Petition should not be dismissed as untimely or why principles of equitable tolling apply, and no Reply was filed. (ECF No. 6). After review of the Petition and Answer, the Court finds no need for an evidentiary hearing. See Fisher v. Lee, 215 F.3d 438, 455 (4th Cir. 2000) (petitioner not entitled to a hearing under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2)). For reasons to follow, the Petition will be dismissed as time-barred.

BACKGROUND

Carroll is challenging his October 20, 2010 guilty plea to attempted second-degree murder entered in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, for which he was sentenced to thirty years imprisonment, with all but nine years suspended and five years of probation. ECF No. 4, Ex. 1 at 1-3. Carroll did not file an Application for Leave to Appeal the entry of his plea. Id. at 3. Thus, his judgment of conviction became final on November 19, 2010, when the time for filing an application for leave to appeal expired. See Md. Rule 8-204(b)(2)(A) (application for leave to appeal to be filed within 30 days of date of judgment from which appeal sought). On November 5, 2010, Carroll filed a Motion for Modification of Sentence, [1] which has been held sub curia by the Circuit Court. Id. pp. 3-5.

On July 5, 2011, Carroll filed a Petition for post-conviction relief in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. Id. at 3. Carroll withdrew the Petition on July 22, 2011. Id. at 3-5.

On May 24, 2012, Carroll filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus in the Circuit Court that was denied on July 20, 2012. ECF No. 4, Ex. 2. On December 11, 2012, Carroll filed a second state petition for a writ of habeas corpus. That matter is still pending in state court. ECF No. 4, Ex. 3.

For the purposes of assessing the timeliness of the Petition, the Court deems it filed on December 20, 2012, the date it was signed and presumably delivered to prison authorities for mailing. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).

DISCUSSION

A one-year statute of limitations applies to habeas petitions in non-capital cases for a person convicted in a state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). The statute provides:

(1) 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 -
(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review;
(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application created by State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the applicant was prevented from filing by such State action;
(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or
(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.