United States District Court, D. Maryland
L. Russell, III United States District Judge.
MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner Andrew Joseph
Dicks' Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254 (2018). (ECF No. 1). The Petition is now
ripe. Having reviewed the Petition and the Respondents'
Opposition, the Court also finds no need for an evidentiary
hearing. See R. Govern. § 2254 Cases U.S. Dist.
Ct. 8(a); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2). For the reasons set
forth below, the Court will dismiss the Petition as
time-barred and decline to issue a Certificate of
1, 2006, Dicks pleaded guilty in the Circuit Court for
Baltimore County to five counts of armed robbery and one
count of robbery. (Pet. Writ Habeas Corpus
[“Pet.”] Ex. G at 2, ECF No. 1-9). That same day,
the Circuit Court sentenced Dicks to a total of forty years
in prison. (Id. 24-25). Dicks did not file an
application for leave to appeal the judgment, which became
final on May 31, 2006. See Md. Rule 8-204(b)(2)(A)
(requiring application for leave to appeal to be filed within
thirty days of judgment from which appeal is sought). Dicks
filed a motion for modification or reduction of sentence on
July 10, 2006, and again on February 16, 2011
(Resp'ts' Limited Answer Ex. 1, [“State Court
Docket”] at 11-12, ECF No. 7-1). The Circuit Court
denied them on April 6, 2011. (State Court Docket at 12).
October 25, 2015, Dicks filed a state petition for
post-conviction relief in the Circuit Court for Baltimore
County. (Id. at 13; Pet. Ex. A, ECF No.
1-3). After holding a hearing on January 18 and
19, 2017, the Circuit Court denied post-conviction relief in
a Memorandum and Order issued on February 16, 2017. (Pet. Ex.
B, ECF No. 1-4). The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
summarily denied Dicks' application for leave to appeal
the denial of post-conviction relief on July 12, 2017. (Pet.
Exs. C, F, ECF Nos. 1-5, 1-8).
signed his Petition on October 23, 2017, and the Clerk of
this Court received it for filing on December 11, 2017.
(Pet., ECF No. 1). In the Petition, Dicks asserts that (1) he
recently discovered evidence that the police tampered with
his Miranda forms; (2) his guilty plea was involuntary;
(3) plea counsel was ineffective for failing to, (a) prepare
for trial and, (b) properly advise him of his trial and
appellate rights. (Pet. at 4).
December 18, 2017, the Court ordered Respondents to answer
the Petition. (ECF No. 2). On February 26, 2018, Respondents
filed a Limited Answer. (ECF No. 7). On April 25, 2018, Dicks
filed what will be construed as a Reply. (ECF No. 10).
contend that Dicks' Petition is time-barred. Dicks
contends his attempts for nine years to get transcripts from
his case delayed the filing of his state post-conviction
petition. He argues that any delay in seeking state
post-conviction relief cannot be imputed against him based on
a claim that could not have been discovered earlier, citing
Brady v. Maryland. He also notes that his state
post-conviction proceedings lasted until July 12, 2017 and
argues that since his federal Petition, signed October 23,
2017, was filed less than a year later, it was therefore
timely under § 2244(d)(2). The Court agrees with
prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus from a federal court
must comply with a one-year period of limitation.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1); Wall v.
Kholi, 562 U.S. 545, 549 (2011). When the limitation
period begins depends on the grounds for the prisoner's
petition. Specifically, the limitation period begins from the
(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