United States District Court, D. Maryland
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
September 13, 2017,  Petitioner Brandon Adam Dauntain filed the
instant 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus Petition
attacking his 2001 state convictions for attempted
second-degree murder, first-degree sex offense, and related
charges. ECF No. 1. Respondents filed an Answer to the
Petition, and Dauntain has filed a reply to the Answer. ECF
Nos. 7, 9.
matter has been fully briefed. Upon review, the Court finds
no need for an evidentiary hearing. See Rule 8(a),
Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States
District Courts; Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2016); see
also Fisher v. Lee, 215 F.3d 438, 455 (4th Cir. 2000)
(petitioner not entitled to hearing under 28 U.S.C. §
2254(e)(2)). For the reasons set forth herein, the Court will
deny and dismiss the Petition with prejudice.
2001, Dauntain was charged in the Circuit Court for Prince
George's County with numerous offenses arising out of his
March 28, 2001 attack of two victims. ECF No. 7-1 at 3;
see also ECF No. 7-10 at 2-7 (summarizing
victims' account of the attack). Before proceeding to a
jury trial, Dauntain moved to suppress evidence, including
statements that he made to police while in custody and
physical evidence seized from Dauntain at the time of his
arrest. ECF No. 7-2 at 62. After conducting a hearing, the
trial court ruled in Dauntain's favor on both motions.
Id. at 62-147 (hearing about custodial statements);
ECF No. 7-3 (hearing about arrest). The court explained that
Dauntain was in police custody but had not been read his
Miranda rights at the time he made certain
statements, and accordingly suppressed those statements. ECF
No. 7-2 at 147. Likewise, the court ruled that, at the time
of his arrest, the police lacked probable cause and therefore
suppressed all of the physical evidence seized from Dauntain
upon his arrest. ECF No. 7-3 at 40.
a jury trial, Dauntain was convicted of more than a dozen
charges, including attempted second-degree murder,
first-degree sex offense, arson, assault, and burglary. ECF
No. 7-1 at 11. In January 2002, Dauntain was sentenced to
life imprisonment, with the first 10 years to be served
without the possibility of parole. Id. at 12.
Dauntain timely appealed, and the Maryland Court of Special
Appeals affirmed his convictions. ECF No. 7-1 at 14; ECF No.
7-10. Dauntain timely filed a petition for a writ of
certiorari with the Maryland Court of Appeals, which denied
the petition on September 18, 2003. ECF No. 7-1 at 14.
Dauntain did not seek review by the United States Supreme
Court; thus, his convictions became final on December 17,
2003, when the time for seeking further review expired.
See Sup Ct. Rule 13.1 (petition for writ of
certiorari to be filed no later than 90 days after entry of
judgment from which review is sought).
September 10, 2004, Dauntain filed a Petition for Post
Conviction Relief (PCR) with the Circuit Court. Id.
at 15; ECF No. 7-11. According to the docket sheet,
Dauntain's PCR petition was referred to the Office of the
Public Defender on September 15, 2004. ECF No. 7-1 at 15.
However, no further action occurred in Dauntain's case
until October 10, 2014, when an Assistant Public Defender
entered an appearance. Id. A supplemental PCR
petition was filed and a hearing was conducted. Id.
at 17. On December 20, 2016, the Circuit Court denied the PCR
petition. Id. The Circuit Court granted
Dauntain's request for an extension of time to file an
appeal of the PCR denial, and Dauntain filed an application
for leave to appeal on February 8, 2017. Id. at
17-18. However, in an order issued April 6, 2017, the Court
of Special Appeals ruled that the Circuit Court lacked the
authority to extend the time for filing an application for
leave to appeal, vacated the Circuit Court's order, and
dismissed Dauntain's application as untimely. ECF No.
September 13, 2017, Dauntain filed the instant § 2254
Petition, arguing that he is entitled to habeas corpus relief
because “[p]olice admitted at motions hearing that at
no time was I read my rights the night of my arrest nor was I
marandized [sic]. Judge ruled that police had no probable
cause to stop me and that my [e]ntire arrest was
illegal.” ECF No. 1 at 5. Respondents have answered,
arguing that Dauntain's Petition should be rejected
because the trial court ruled in Dauntain's favor on
these challenges and suppressed the unconstitutionally
obtained evidence. ECF No. 7 at 18-19. In the alternative,
Respondents note that the Petition could be dismissed as
time-barred or as procedurally defaulted. Id. at 8
n.1, 18 n.2. Further, Respondents argue that, to the extent
Dauntain's claim is read as presenting a Fourth Amendment
challenge, it is not cognizable on habeas corpus review, as
the issue was fully litigated in state court. Id. at
19 n.3. The Court gave Dauntain an opportunity to explain why
his Petition should not be dismissed as time-barred and to
reply to the Respondent's other arguments, ECF No. 8, and
Dauntain timely did so, ECF No. 9.
2254 states that a district court “shall entertain an
application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person
in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on
the ground that he is in custody in violation of the
Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”
28 U.S.C. § 2254(a).
is a threshold consideration when examining a
petitioner's claims. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
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 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