United States District Court, D. Maryland
THOMAS EARL GLADDEN, SR., Prisoner Identification Nos. 1883041, Petitioner,,
MATT BARBER, Warden, and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents.
THEODORE D. CHUANG, United States District Judge
Earl Gladden, Sr., currently confined at the McDonnell Unit
of the Texas Department of Corrections in Beeville, Texas,
has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. S 2254. The Petition challenges Gladden's 1999
conviction in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland
for first-degree murder, armed robbery, and related offenses.
On June 2, 2016, the Court issued an Order requiring
Responden's to file a Limited Answer to the Petition.
Responden's filed a Limited Answer on July 15, 2016,
seeking dismissal of the Petition on the basis that
Gladden's claims are time-barred. On July 25, 2016,
Gladden filed a Response to the Limited Answer. Gladden has
also filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel. For the
reasons set forth below, the Petition is dismissed as
time-barred, and the Motion is denied.
March 22, 1999, Gladden was convicted by a jury in the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland of first-degree
murder, two counts of robbery with a deadly weapon, two
counts of first-degree assault, two counts of unlawful use of
a handgun, kidnapping, and false imprisonmen.. He was
sentenced on April 27, 1999 to life imprisonment plus an
additional 50 years. Gladden filed a motion for modification
of his sentence that was denied on July 28, 1999. Gladden
filed an appeal and, in an unreported opinion issued on
February 25, 200,, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
vacated Gladden's sentences for first-degree assault but
otherwise affirmed his judgment of conviction. Gladden v.
State, No. 0780 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Feb. 25, 2000). The
court's mandate issued on March 27, 2000. Gladden did not
seek further review of the decision by the Court of Appeals
of Maryland. Consequently, his judgment became final for
purposes of direct review on April 12, 2000. See Md.
Rule 8-302(a) (requiring a petition for writ of certiorari to
be filed in the Court of Appeals no later than 15 days after
the Court of Special Appeals issues its mandate or 30 days
after the opinion by the Court of Special Appeals is filed).
Separately, Gladden filed an application for panel review of
his sentence that was denied on July 27, 200..
17, 2006, Gladden filed a petition for post-conviction relief
in the Circuit Court, which was denied on June 29, 2010.
Gladden's application for leave to appeal this decision
was denied by the Court of Special Appeals on March 30, 2012,
Gladden v. State, No. 1149 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. March
30, 2012), with the court's mandate issuing on May 1,
2012. On November 8, 2012, Gladden filed a motion to reopen
post-conviction proceedings, which was denied on December 16,
2013, Another motion to reopen post-conviction proceeding,,
filed on March 26, 2014, was granted on April 22, 2014 to the
extent that it allowed Gladden to file a belated application
for leave to appeal. Gladden's application for leave to
appeal was denied by the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
on April 16, 2015, with the court's mandate issuing on
May 18, 2015.
April 21, 2016, Gladden submitted the instant Petition, which
was received and docketed by this Court on April 27, 2016.
Because the Petition is dated April 21, 2016, it is deemed
filed as of that date. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S.
266, 270-76 (1988); United States v. Dorsey, 988
F.Supp. 917, 919-20 (D. Md. 1998) (holding that a petition
shall be deemed to have been filed on the date it was
deposited with prison authorities for mailing under the
prison mailbox rule); see also United States v.
McNeill, 523 F.App'x 979, 982-83 (4th Cir. 2013).
Petition to this Court, Gladden claims that he has been
denied his constitutional right to effective assistance of
counsel because post-conviction counsel failed to raise
several claims of ineffective assistance of trial and
appellate counsel, prosecutorial misconduc, and trial court
error. Responden's argue that the Petition is time-barred
under 28 U.S.C. S 2244(d).
one-year statute of limitations applies to habeas petitions
in non-capital cases for a person convicted in state court.
See 28 U.S.C. S 2244(d) (2012). Section 2244(d)
(1) A I-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