United States District Court, D. Maryland
W. Grimm United States District Judge.
Gregg, an inmate confined at the North Branch Correctional
Institution in Cumberland, Maryland, seeks to attack his 2003
convictions for first degree murder and related offenses.
Pet., ECF NO.1. In a limited answer,
respondents argue that the petition is time-barred under the
Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
("AEDPA".. Ltd. Ans., ECF NO.3. Gregg acknowledges
that the petition is untimely but asks the Court to apply
equitable tolling because he has no state court remedies
available. Pet.; Reply, ECF NO.5. After reviewing these
papers, I find 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. S 2254(e)(2). Because the petition is untimely and
equitable tolling is not appropriate, the Petition is DENIED
April 4, 2003, after a jury trial in. the Circuit Court for
Baltimore City, Gregg was convicted of first degree murder,
conspiracy to commit murder, use of a handgun during the
commission of a crime of violence, and wearing and carrying a
handgun. Pet. 1-2; State Ct. Docket Entries 1-2, 4,
ECF No. 3-1; Reply 1. He was acquitted of attempted robbery.
State Ct. Docket Entries 1, 4; Reply 1. Gregg was sentenced
on May 14, 2003, to two concurrent life sentences plus a
concurrent term of twenty years imprisonment. Pet. 1; State
Ct. Docket Entries 5. He appealed his convictions to the
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, which on October 25,
2004, affirmed the judgments. Pet. 2-3; Gregg v.
Maryland, No. 564, Sept. Term 2003, at
1, 10 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Oct. 25, 2004)
(unreported), ECF No. 3-2. The court's Mandate was issued
on November 24, 2004. Mandate, ECF No. 32. Gregg filed a
petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of
Maryland, which was denied on January 13, 2005. Pet. 3; Writ
of Cert. Denial 3, ECF No. 3-3. He did not seek further
review. Pet. 3. Therefore, Gregg's convictions became
final on April 13, 2005. See Harris v. Hutchinson,
209 F.3d 325, 328 & n.l (4th Cir. 2000) (noting that time
for appealing state court conviction concludes when time for
filing petition for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court,
90 days, expires); Sup. Ct. R.131..
his direct appeal was pending, Gregg filed a motion for DNA
testing in the circuit court pursuant to Md. Code Ann., Crim.
Proc. § 8-201(c.. Pet. 7; State Ct. Docket Entries 6.
The motion was subsequently withdrawn without prejudice.
State Ct. Docket Entries 7. Gregg filed a second motion for
DNA testing on November 9, 2005, pursuant to the same
statute, as well as a motion for new trial. Pet. 7-8; State
Ct. Docket Entries 8. Both motions were denied, without
hearing, on April 17, 2006. Pet. 8; State Ct. Docket Entries
8. Gregg did not receive timely notice of the denial of the
motions, and on May 2, 2006, he filed both a motion for
reconsideration and a notice of appeal. Pet. 8; State Ct.
Docket Entries 8. The circuit court denied the motion for
reconsideration, and the Court of Special Appeals dismissed
the appeal as untimely. Pet. 8; State Ct. Docket Entries 9.
February 6, 2007, Gregg filed an application for
post-conviction relief in the circuit Court, seeking the
right to file a belated appeal of the denial of the motion
for DNA testing, which the circuit court granted on March 20,
2008. Pet. 8; State Ct. Docket Entries 9, 11; First
Post-Conviction Petition, ECF No. 3-4. The Court of Appeals
on My 24, 2009, remanded the case to the
circuit court with directions to enter an order for DNA
testing, which ultimately proved inconclusive. Pet. 8; State
Ct. Docket Entries 12; Gregg v. State, 409 Md. 698
(2009), ECF No. 3-5.
filed a second petition for post-conviction relief on May 13,
2013, and, alternatively, a motion to reopen his initial
post-conviction application. Pet. 8; Second Post-Conviction
Petition, ECF No. 3-6. The Circuit Court for Baltimore City
denied Gregg's second petition on October 25, 2013,
finding it procedurally barred. Gregg v. Maryland,
No. 2027, Sept. Term 2013, at 2 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. May 6,
2015) (unreported), ECF No. 3-7; Reply 4. Gregg then filed an
application for leave to appeal the denial, which the Court
of Special Appeals granted. Gregg v. Maryland, No.
2027, Sept. Term 2013, at 2-3 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. May 6,
2015) (unreported.. The intermediate appellate court,
however, affirmed the circuit court's denial of
Gregg's second post-conviction petition in an unreported
opinion issued on May 6, 2015, and the Court of Appeals on
August 24, 2015, denied Gregg's petition for a writ of
certiorari. Id. at 1, 3, 13114; Second Writ of Cert.
Denial, ECF No. 3-8.
filed this petition on October 12, 2015,  alleging
ineffective assistance of trial, appellate, and
post-conviction counsel. Pet. 4-7. On November 13, 2015,
pursuant to the Court's Order, respondents filed a
limited answer, arguing that the petition is time-barred and
should be dismissed on that basis. Ltd. Ans. 1. The Court
issued an Order on November 19, 2015, granting Gregg
twenty-eight days from that date to file a response
addressing the timeliness issue. Order 2, ECF NO.4. However,
Gregg's response was not received until April 22,
201.. See Reply 1. He states that he
mailed his response on December 14, 2015, and has included
tracking information confirming that certified mail was sent
on December 14th. Id. at 1; USPS Tracking 2, ECF
NO.5-1. Gregg asks the Court to grant him another
opportunity, in the form of a response filed on April 8,
2016, to explain why the Petition should not be dismissed as
time-barred. Reply 1, 29. Under the circumstance,, the Court
grants that request.
threshold issue in this case is the timeliness of the
petition. Only if the Petition is timely may the Court reach
the merits of Gregg's claims of ineffective assistance of
one-year statute of limitations applies to habeas petitions
in non-capital cases for persons convicted in state court.
See 28 U.S.C. S 2244(d)(1); Wall v. Khali,
562 U.S. 545, 550 (2011). Section 2244(d)(1) provides that:
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