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.

Reed v. Foxwell

United States District Court, D. Maryland

October 17, 2017

COREY M. REED, #289-903, Petitioner
v.
RICKY FOXWELL and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents

          MEMORANDUM

          CATHERINE C. BLAKE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Corey M. Reed, a self-represented Maryland prisoner, seeks habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF 1, as supplemented by ECF 3.) He attacks his 1999 conviction in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland for first-degree murder. He also submitted exhibits in support of the petition. Respondents have answered and offered the docket sheet outlining proceedings relating to Reed's criminal case. (ECF 8.) Reed has replied. (ECF 11, 12.) 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, ” 28 U.S.C. folio § 2254; see also 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2). For the reasons set forth below, the petition shall be denied and a certificate of appealability shall not issue.

         I. Factual and Procedural History

         A. State Proceedings

         On December 15, 1999, Reed pleaded guilty to a single count of first-degree murder in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. (ECF 8-1, p. 4.) On that same day, December 15, 1999, Reed was sentenced to life imprisonment, with all but 25 years suspended. (Id.) Reed did not file an application for leave to appeal the entry of his plea and sentence; thus, his judgment became final under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A) on January 14, 2000. See Md. Rule 8-204 (application for leave to appeal to be filed within 30 days of judgment from which appeal is sought).

         On February 26, 2001, Reed filed a post-conviction petition in the Baltimore City Circuit Court. (ECF 8-1 at 1.) His motion to withdraw the petition was granted without prejudice on May 16, 2001. (Id.) Reed re-filed his post-conviction petition on August 10, 2001, and moved to withdraw it on April 30, 2002. (Id.) The motion to withdraw was granted without prejudice on May 15, 2002. (Id.)

         On March 31, 2004, Reed again sought post-conviction relief. (Id.) His post-conviction petition was denied on October 26, 2004. (Id.) Leave to appeal the denial of post-conviction relief was denied by the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland on April 28, 2015. (ECF 8-1 at 2.)

         Between August 24, 2005 and June 3, 2016, Reed moved to reopen post-conviction proceedings on four separate occasions. (Id.). Reed's application for leave to appeal the dismissal of his fourth motion to reopen was denied by the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland on January 9, 2017. (ECF 8-1 at 3).

         B. Federal Proceedings

         In his petition, as supplemented, Reed asserts that his plea was involuntary. He also asserts that counsel provided ineffective assistance and that the prosecutor relied on “false evidence” to support the plea and “illegal sentence.” (ECF 3, p. 5.) In a limited answer to the petition, respondents assert that the merit of Reed's claims cannot be examined because the petition is untimely pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) and Reed has provided no basis for applying the doctrine of equitable tolling. (ECF 8 at 2-5.)

         In reply, Reed argues that the one-year limitations period did not run while he attempted to fully exhaust all of his claims by pursuing post-conviction remedies. (ECF 11 at 4-10.) Reed also argues that the limitations period should tolled because court-appointed counsel failed to advise him of his right to direct appeal and his right for review of sentence. (ECF 12 at 2-3).

         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. § 2254. The one-year limitations period 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. § 2244(d)(1)(A)[1]; see also Wall v. Kholi,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.