United States District Court, D. Maryland
FREDERICK MOTZ, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Maize, a self-represented Maryland prisoner, seeks habeas
corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ~ 2254 attacking his 2010
conviction in the Circuit Court for Worcester County,
Maryland for first- and second-degree rape, assault with
intent to rape, and first-degree burglary. ECF 1. Respondents
have responded and offered the docket sheet outlining
proceedings relating to Maize's criminal case as well as
the unreported opinion of the Court of Special Appeals of
Maryland denying Maize's direct appeal. See ECF
9. Maize has replied. ECF 11. After reviewing the petition,
answer and reply, the court finds no need for an evidentiary
hearing. See Rule 8(a), Rules Governing Section
2254 Cases in the United States District Courts; see also
28 U.S.C. s2254(e)(2). For the reasons set forth below,
the petition shall be denied as time-barred and a certificate
of appeal ability shall not issue.
Factual and Procedural History
January 5, 2010, a Worcester County Circuit Court judge found
Maize guilty of first-degree rape and related charges and
sentenced him to life plus a concurrent 20-year term of
imprisonment.. ECF 91 -1, pp. 5-6. The convictions and
sentence were upheld on direct appeal in an unreported
decision rendered on July 27, 201, , by the
Court of Special Appeals. ECF 9-2; Maize v. State of
Maryland, No. 185 (C.S.A. Sept. Term 2010). The mandate
issued on August 26, 2011. Id., p. 1. Maize's
request for further review by the Maryland Court of Appeals
was denied on January 23, 2012. See Maize v. State,
424 Md. 292 (2012).
December 17, 2012, Maize filed a petition for post-conviction
relief, later supplemented. ECF 9-1, p. 11. On July 2, 2015,
the Circuit Court for Worcester County granted
post-conviction relief by vacating Maize's sentences and
ordering a new sentencing proceeding. Id., p. 18.
Maize was resentenced on October 20, 2015, to a life
sentence. Id. Maize did not seek review of this new
judgment in the Court of Special Appeals; thus, his judgment
became final for direct appeal purposes on Thursday, November
19, 2015. See Md. Rule 8-204 (application for leave
to appeal to be filed within 30 days of judgment from which
appeal is sought).
Monday, November 16, 2015, Maize filed a motion for
modification of sentence which was denied on December 8, 2015
ECF 9-1, p. 20. On that same date, November 16, 2015, Maize
filed an application for review of sentence pursuant to
Maryland Rule 4-344,  which was denied on December 22, 2015.
Id., p. 21.
December 22, 2016, Maize filed a "memorandum to the
court" expressing his desire to initiate federal habeas
corpus proceeding.. ECF 1. Because the pleading did not
provide sufficient information to proceed as a habeas
petition, Maize was granted additional time to provide the
grounds requesting relief, using court-approved forms. ECF 2.
Maize filed supplemental pleadings dated January 10, 2017,
alleging a multitude of errors ranging from a violation of
the Interstate Act on Detainers to violation of
Maryland's 180-day "speedy trial"
requirement. ECF 11 at p. 11; ECF 3.
limited answer to the petition, respondents assert that the
merit of Maize's claims cannot be examined because the
petition is untimely pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) and
Maize has provided no basis for applying the doctrine of
equitable tolling. ECF 9 at 2-6.
reply, Maize claims, without specificity, that he has proof
that the "prosecutor misuse[d] . . .
exculpatory evidence." ECF 11.
Applicable Statutory Standards
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
("AEDPA") was enacted and signed into law on April
24, 1996. Prior to AEDPA, there was no time limitation on
when a prisoner could file an original action for habeas
corpus relief in federal court. AEDPA introduced a one-year
limitations period for state prisoners filing under 28 U.S.C.
S 2254. The one-year period which applies to habeas petitions
begins to run on the date on which the judgment became final
by the conclusion of direct review or (if no appeal is taken)
upon the expiration of the time for seeking such review.
See 28 U.S.C. S 2244(d)(1)(A); see also
Wall v. Khali,562 U.S. 545, 549 (2011). The one-year
period is tolled while ...