United States District Court, D. Maryland, Southern Division
J. HAZEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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.
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. The Circuit Court
sentenced him to two consecutive terms of imprisonment of
life and twenty years. Id.
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).
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.
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.
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