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.

Maize v. Warden

United States District Court, D. Maryland

August 11, 2017

LESLIE MAIZE, #431-507, Petitioner
v.
WARDEN Respondent

          MEMORANDUM

          J. FREDERICK MOTZ, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Leslie 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.

         I. Factual and Procedural History

         A. State Proceedings

         On 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).

         On 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).

         On 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, [1] which was denied on December 22, 2015. Id., p. 21.

         B. Federal Proceedings

         On 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.[2] ECF 11 at p. 11; ECF 3.

         In a 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.

         In reply, Maize claims, without specificity, that he has proof that the "prosecutor misuse[d] . . . exculpatory evidence." ECF 11.

         II. Discussion

         A. Applicable Statutory Standards

         The 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)[3]; see also Wall v. Khali,562 U.S. 545, 549 (2011). The one-year period is tolled while ...


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.