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.

Hunt v. Morgan

United States District Court, D. Maryland

August 15, 2017

KAREEM EUGENE HUNT, #361028 Petitioner,
v.
J. PHILLIP MORGAN, el al. Respondents.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          RICHARD D. BENNETT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Petitioner Kareem Eugene Hunt, an inmate confined at the Maryland Correctional Institution in Jessup, Maryland, has filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. For reasons set forth below, the Petition shall be DENIED and DISMISSED as time-barred.

         BACKGROUND

         On March 6, 2017, the Court received Hunt's self-represented Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Petition was signed on March 2, 2017, and shall be deemed filed as of that date. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270-76 (1988); United States v. McNeill, 523 Fed.Appx. 979, 983 (4th Cir. 2013); United States v. Dorsey, 988 F.Supp. 917, 919-920 (D. Md. 1998) (holding 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.)

         The Petition challenges Hunt's 2010 convictions in the Circuit Court for Howard County for armed robbery, attempted armed robbery, conspiracy to commit armed robbery, and related charges. On March 8, 2017, the Court issued an Order requiring Respondents to file an answer to the Petition within forty days and granted Hunt twenty-eight days to file a reply. ECF No. 3.

         Respondents tiled a Limited Answer to the Petition on April 21, 2017, seeking dismissal of the Petition premised on the argument that Hunt's claims are time-barred. ECF NO.4. Hunt has filed a Reply. ECF NO.5.

         DISCUSSION

         I. Petition

         According to the state court docket, Hunt was indicted in May of 2009. In November of 2009 a jury convicted Hunt of multiple counts of armed robbery, attempted armed robbery, conspiracy to commit armed robbery, first-degree assault, and related handgun and firearm offenses. He was sentenced to an aggregate 50 years of incarceraiion. ECF No. 4-1 and ECF No. 4-2. Hunt's convictions were affirmed on direct appeal by the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland on March 30, 201 L with the mandate issued on April 29, 2011. ECF No. 4-2. Hunt sought no further appellate review. Therefore, his convictions became final for direct appeal purposes on May 16, 201.. See Md. Rule 8-302(a) (a petition for writ of certiorari must be tiled within 15 days of the issuance of the mandate).

         On September 19, 2011, Hunt filed a self-represented post-conviction petition, which was supplemented by a counseled petition on June 13, 2012. On October 15, 2012, Circuit Court Judge Richard Bernhardt denied post-conviction relief. ECF NO.4-1. Hunfs application for leave to appeal was denied by the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland on December 17, 2013. ECF No. 4-1 and ECF No. 4-3.

         On October 6, 2014, Hunt filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence in the Circuit Court. ECF NO.4I.. The motion was denied by Circuit Court Judge Timothy McGrone on May 4, 2015. Hunfs appeal was denied by the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland on January 15, 2016. ECr No. 4-4. His petition for writ of certiorari was denied by the Court of Appeals of Maryland on June 24, 2016. See Hunt v. Slale, 448 Md. 315 (2016).

         Respondents maintain that even when considering the time that Hunt's collateral review motions were pending in the Maryland courts, his Petition is untimely under 28 U.S.C. S 2244(d)(2). There is no dispute that Hunt's conviction became final for direct appeal purposes on May 16, 201.. Respondenss argue, however, that as Hunt's petition for post-conviction relief was pending from September 19, 2011 through December 17, 2013 and his motion to correct an illegal sentence was pending from October 6, 2014 through June 24, 2016, Hunt allowed an aggregate time of more than one year to run, without collateral review proceeding,, before he tiled this Petition on March 2, 2017.

         In his Reply, Hunt seemingly argues that the statute of limitations period should commence after June 24, 2016, when the Court of Appeals of Maryland denied his petition for writ of certiorar.. He asserts that as he filed his Petition within nine months of that ruling, he still had a "three month window" to tile his S 2254 Petition. ECr NO.5.

         A. Limit ...


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.