Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Duckett v. Bishop

United States District Court, D. Maryland, Southern Division

October 21, 2019

CHARLES EUGENE DUCKETT, JR.,[1] Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN FRANK BISHOP, et al., Respondents.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          GEORGE J. HAZEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Petitioner Charles Eugene Duckett, Jr. filed this Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. Respondents assert that the Petition must be dismissed as untimely. ECF No. 4. The timeliness issue is fully briefed, and no hearing is necessary to resolve the Petition. See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, Rule 8(a); Fisher v. Lee, 215 F.3d 438, 455 (4th Cir. 2000). For the following reasons, the Petition is dismissed.

         I. BACKGROUND

         On February 19, 2008, following a jury trial in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Maryland, Duckett was convicted of first-degree murder and use of a handgun in the commission of a crime of violence. ECF No. 4-1 at 4-5.[2] The Circuit Court sentenced him to two consecutive terms of imprisonment of life and twenty years. Id.

         Duckett appealed his conviction and, on September 1, 2009, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals reversed his conviction for use of a handgun in the commission of a crime of violence, but otherwise affirmed his conviction and sentence for first-degree murder. ECF No. 4-1 at 8. Duckett filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Maryland Court of Appeals, but the petition was denied on December 11, 2009. See Duckett v. State, 411 Md. 600 (2009) (Table). He did not seek further review by the United States Supreme Court, so his conviction became final when the time for seeking such review expired on March 11, 2010. See Sup. Ct. R. 13 (providing ninety days from the date of judgment to seek certiorari review in the Supreme Court).

         On March 14, 2011, Duckett filed a petition for post-conviction relief in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. ECF No. 4-1 at 9. The Circuit Court denied post-conviction relief on February 25, 2014. Id. Duckett's application for leave to appeal the denial of post-conviction relief was summarily denied on May 29, 2015. ECF No. 4-2. The mandate issued on June 30, 2015. Id.

         Duckett filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in this Court on August 28, 2017. ECF No. 1. On October 24, 2017, Respondents filed a Response asserting that the Petition should be dismissed as time-barred. ECF No. 4. On November 9, 2017, Duckett filed a Reply. ECF No. 6. The Reply did not specifically address Respondents' timeliness argument, so on April 30, 2018, the Court provided Duckett twenty-eight days to file a response to the timeliness argument. ECF No. 7. Duckett filed that response on May 16, 2018. ECF No. 8.

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. Timeliness

         Under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2244, the one-year limitation period runs 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 retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or
(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.