United States District Court, D. Maryland
W. Grimm United States District Judge.
Petitioner Luis Guardado filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. The
Petition challenges Guardado's 2014 conviction in the
Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland for
second-degree rape, Id.; see State Ct. Docket 1, ECF
No. 3-1. Respondents filed an answer in which they argue, in
part, that the Petition is time-barred under 28 U.S.C. §
2244(d)(1)-(2). ECF No. 3. Guardado filed a reply, stating
that he filed the Petition immediately after the state court
denied him post-conviction relief. ECF No. 6. An evidentiary
hearing is unnecessary. See Rule 8(a), Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
Courts and Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2018); see also
Fisher v. Lee, 215 F.3d 438, 455 (4th Cir. 2000)
(petitioner not entitled to a hearing under 28 U.S.C. §
2254(e)(2)). Because it is time-barred, Guardado's
Petition is dismissed, and a certificate of appealability
shall not issue.
a jury trial in July, 2014, Guardado was convicted in the
Circuit Court for Montgomery County of second-degree rape.
See State Ct. Docket 8-11. On November 13, 2014, he
was sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment with all but nine
years suspended, followed by a period of supervised
probation. Id. at 1, 12. In an unreported opinion
filed on October 14, 2015, the Court of Special Appeals of
Maryland affirmed Guardado's convictions. See
Guardado v. State, No. 2397, Sept. Term 2014 (Md. Ct.
Spec. App. Oct. 14, 2015) (unreported), ECF No. 3-10.
Guardado then filed a petition for writ of certiorari, which
the Court of Appeals of Maryland denied on January 29, 2016.
Cert. Pet. & Order, ECF No. 3-10, at 15-18. Guardado did
not seek further review in the Supreme Court.
December 12, 2014, Guardado filed a motion for new trial,
which the circuit court denied. See State Ct. Docket
16-17, 20. Guardado appealed to the Court of Special Appeals,
which affirmed the circuit court's decision in an
unreported opinion filed on June 3, 2016, with the mandate
issuing on July 5, 2016. See Guardado v. State, No.
0928, Sept. Term 2015 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. June 3, 2016)
(unreported), ECF No. 3-13. Guardado did not seek further
review of that ruling in the Court of Appeals.
December 13, 2016, Guardado filed a petition for
post-conviction relief in state circuit court. See
Stmt, of Reasons & Order 1, ECF No. 3-14. After a hearing
on September 28, 2017, the post-conviction court denied
Guardado's petition; the court filed its order on October
11, 2017. Id. at 9; State Ct. Docket 13. On November
17, 2017, Guardado filed an application for leave to appeal
the denial of post-conviction relief to the Court of Special
Appeals, which dismissed the appeal as untimely by order
dated January 22, 2018. State Ct. Docket 13-14; Application,
ECF No. 3-15. The court's mandate issued on February 21,
2018. State Ct. Docket 13.
8, 2018, Guardado filed his Petition in this Court,
claiming that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance
by failing to contact witnesses and failing to acquire
requested evidence. Pet. 6. Guardado also claims that the
circuit court erred in limiting cross-examination of the
victim regarding her immigration status. Id.
threshold issue in this case is the timeliness of the
petition. Only if the Petition is timely may the Court reach
the merits of Guardado's claims.
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); Wall 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 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 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