United States District Court, D. Maryland, Southern Division
J. HAZEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Rattler, an inmate at the Western Correctional institution in
Cumberland. Maryland, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus regarding his 2000 convictions for armed robbery and
related offenses. ECF No. 1 (supplemented by ECF No. 3. ECF
No. 4. ECF No. 6). In a limited answer. Respondents Warden R.
Graham and the Attorney General of the State of Maryland
argue that the petition is time-barred under the
Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
("AEDPA"). ECF No. 5. Rattler argues that his claim
is not time-barred because he has presented a colorable claim
of actual innocence and is entitled to equitable tolling of
his time limitation. ECF No. 11 at 6. No evidentiary hearing is
necessary. See Rule 8(a), Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases in the United Stales District Courts; see
also 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2). For the reasons set
forth herein, the Petition is denied.
October 1999. after a jury trial in the Circuit Court for
Montgomery County, Rattler was convicted of armed robbery,
assault, illegal use of a handgun, and illegal possession of
a handgun. ECF No. 9-1 at 1: ECF No. 9-2. Rattler was
sentenced on June 7. 2000. to a twenty-five year term of
confinement. Id. He appealed his conviction, and on
May 11. 2001. the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
affirmed Rattler's conviction for illegal use of a
handgun and illegal possession of a handgun, vacated his
first degree assault convictions and remanded the case for
resentencing on the armed robbery conviction. ECF No. 9-2 at
1 5. Rattler filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the
Court of Appeals of Maryland, which was denied on September
14. 2001. See Rattler v. State, 365 Md. 475 (2001).
Rattler's convictions became final on December 14. 2001.
See Harris v. Hutchinson. 209 F.3d 325. 328 n.1 (4th
Cir. 2000) (noting that lime for appealing state court
conviction concludes when time for filing petition for writ
of certiorari in the Supreme Court, ninety days, expires).
filed a motion for a new trial on September 11. 2000. which
was denied on November 30. 2001. ECF No. 9-1 at 38. The Court
of Special Appeals affirmed this ruling. ECF No. 9-3. and the
court's mandate issued on February 10. 2003. ECF No. 9-1
at 45. Rattler did not seek further review of this decision
and the judgment became final on February 25. 2003.
See Md. Rule 8-302 (requiring petition for writ of
certiorari be filed in the Court of Appeals no later than 15
days after the Court of Special Appeals issues its mandate).
27. 2007. Rattler filed a petition for post-conviction relief
in the circuit court. ECF No. 9-1 at 46. which, after being
amended, the court denied on January 19. 2012. ECF No. 9-1 at
67. Rattler's application for leave to appeal the denial
of other post-conviction relief was denied by the Court of
Special Appeals on April 8. 2013. ECF No. 9-4 at 2. The court
denied Rattler's motion for reconsideration and issued
its mandate on January 2). 2014.
id. at 1.
Hied the instant petition on June 14. 2015. ECF No. 1. He
alleges prosecutorial misconduct in that the stale's
attorneys tailed to turn over forensic reports regarding the
bullet that was recovered from the crime scene, ECF No. 3 at
5. failed to disclose the details of the
"deal/arrangement between Ronald Calvin Hawkins and the
Maryland Virginia law enforcement agencies."
id. at 22, and elicited false testimony from
Hawkins, id., at 37. Rattler explains that motions
regarding the turning over of the forensic reports and any
known deals were argued in pretrial motions. Id. at
5. 24. Rattler also alleges here that the search and seizure
warrants issued in his case were improperly obtained. ECF No.
4-1 at 10. The legality of the warrants was also litigated at
a pretrial suppression hearing. Id.
October 28. 2015. Respondents filed a limited answer, arguing
that Rattler's petition is time-barred and should be
dismissed on that basis. ECF No. 9 at 7. The Court issued an
Order on October 30, 2015. granting Rattler twenty-eight days
from that date to file a response addressing the timeliness
issue. ECF No. 10. Rattler's response was received on
November 25. 2015. ECF No. 11.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
one-year statute of limitations applies to habeas petitions
in non-capital cases for persons convicted in state court.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1); Wail v.
Kholi, 562 U.S. 545. 550 (2011). Section 2244(d)(1)
A 1-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 Slate 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
prevented from filing by such State action:
(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was
initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has
been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made