United States District Court, D. Maryland
JAMES D. DAVIS, Petitioner,
WARDEN Y CAMPBELL, Respondent.
RICHARD D. BENNETT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
James D. Davis, an inmate at the Jessup Correctional
Institution in Jessup, Maryland, has filed a Petition for a
Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in
which he collaterally attacks his 2005 conviction for
attempted second-degree murder, armed robbery, and other
lesser offenses. ECF No. 1. Respondents have filed a limited
Answer in which they argue that the Petition should be
dismissed as untimely. ECF No. 4. Pursuant to Hill v.
Braxton, 277 F.3d 701 (4th Cir. 2002), Davis was
afforded an opportunity to explain why the Petition should
not be dismissed as time-barred. ECF No. 5. Davis has
responded. ECF No. 6. Upon review of the submitted materials,
the Court finds no need for an evidentiary hearing.
See Rule 8(a), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in
the United States District Courts; D. Md. Local R. 105.6 (D.
Md. 2018). For the reasons set forth below, the Petition will
be DISMISSED as time-barred.
January 24, 2005, Davis entered guilty pleas in the Circuit
Court for Montgomery County in Case Numbers 100534 and
100675. In Case Number 100534 he pleaded guilty to attempted
second degree murder, armed robbery, conspiracy to commit
armed robbery, first degree assault, and use of a handgun in
the commission of a qualifying crime. ECF No. 4-1, p. 8,
Docket Entry ("DE") 74 (Docket Entries Montgomery
County Circuit Court Case Numbers 100534 and 100675). Davis
entered a plea of guilty in No. 100675 to another armed
robbery. ECF No. 4-1, p.25, DE60.
was sentenced in both cases on May 31, 2005. In No. 100675 he
received a 10 year term of incarceration. ECF No. 4-1, p. 26,
DE 72. In Case Number 100534 he was sentenced to a 30 year
term of incarceration for attempted second-degree murder to
run consecutively to the sentence imposed in No. 100675, as
well as a concurrent 15 year term of incarceration for the
armed robbery; a concurrent 15 year term of incarceration for
conspiracy to commit armed robbery; and a consecutive 5 year
term of incarceration for the use of handgun in the
commission ofa crime of violence. ECFNo.4-l, pp. 9-10, DE 87.
As part of his plea agreement, Davis waived his right to
request a sentence review panel and to apply for leave to
appeal to the Maryland Court of Special Appeals. ECF 1-1 at
27, 2015, Davis filed a petition for post-conviction relief
in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. ECF No. 4-1, p.
10, DE 93, DE 80; see also ECF No. 1, p. 3. At that
time, Davis was no longer imprisoned on the 10 year sentence
imposed in No. 100675, which had expired no later than June
29, 2014. ECF 1-1, p. 4. Accordingly, the state
post-conviction court determined that to the extent Davis
intended to challenge that judgment, the petition was moot.
ECF No. 4-1, p. 28, DE 89. Davis' application for leave
to appeal that decision was denied as untimely. ECF No. 4-1,
p. 28-29, DE 89, 91, 100.
regard to No. 100534, the Petition for post-conviction relief
was denied on March 31, 2016. ECF No. 4-1, p. 13, DE 122.
Davis's application for leave to appeal was denied on
September 27, 2016, with the court's mandate issued on
October 27, 2017. Id., p. 15, DE 140.
November 27, 2018, Davis filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County. The
matter was transferred to the Circuit Court for Montgomery
County. ECF No. 4-1, p. 15, DE 141. The petition was denied
on December 4, 2018 without a hearing. ECF 1-1, p. 33; ECF
No. 4-1, p. 16, DE 143.
filed the instant Petition on January 3, 2019. ECF No. 1. In
the Petition, Davis contends that his indictment was
defective and that counsel at all stages of his proceedings
was ineffective for failing to argue this issue. Id.
labeled the Petition as filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2241. ECF No. 1-2, p. 1. "[R]egardless of how they are
styled, federal habeas petitions of prisoners who are 'in
custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court' should
be treated as 'applications under section 2254' . ..
even if they challenge the execution of a state
sentence." In re Wright, 826 F.3d 774, 779
(4th. Cir. 2016). Challenges to administrative rules,
decisions, and procedures applied to a state sentence are
challenges to the execution of a sentence and must be raised
in a § 2254 petition. Accordingly, the Petition was
docketed and has proceeded as having been filed pursuant to
petition for a writ of habeas corpus may be granted only for
violations of the Constitution or laws of the United States.
28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) (2012). However, a petition is
subject to the following statutory limitations period:
(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