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.

Robinson v. Braun

United States District Court, D. North Dakota

January 19, 2017

Anthony James Robinson, Petitioner,
v.
Colby Braun, Warden, Respondent.

          ORDER

          Charles S. Miller, Jr., Magistrate Judge.

         Petitioner Anthony James Robinson is an inmate at the North Dakota State Penitentiary (“NDSP”) in Bismarck, North Dakota. He has filed a “Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody.” The State of North Dakota (“State”) has filed a “Limited Motion to Dismiss Section 2254 Petition.” The parties have consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by the undersigned. For the reasons set forth below, the State's motion to dismiss is granted, and Robinson's petition is dismissed with prejudice.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Robinson was charged in state district court with the offense of murder. He executed a plea agreement and entered a guilty plea to this offense on October 20, 2011. (Doc. No. 15-2). He was sentenced on January 11, 2012, to term of imprisonment of fifty years with twenty-three years suspended. (Id.). The state district court entered an amended criminal judgment on February 2, 2012. (Id.). Robinson did not file a direct appeal. (Id.; Doc. No. 15-1).

         On December 27 2013, Robinson filed an application for postconviction relief in state district court. (Doc. Nos. 15-3 and 15-4). See Robinson v. State, 2016 ND 127, 881 N.W.2d 256. The state district court dismissed the application on motion by the State on January 7, 2016. (Doc. No. 15-3). Its decision was summarily affirmed by the North Dakota Supreme Court in a per curiam dated June 30, 2016. Robinson, 2016 ND 127. The mandate was issued on July 29, 2016.

         On October 12, 2016, Robinson filed a § 22554 petition with this court.[1] On November 30, 2017, the Government filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the petition was time barred. Robinson has yet to file a response.

         II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), the one-year statute of limitations at 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) applies to a state prisoner's application for federal habeas corpus relief. Johnson v. Hobbs, 678 F.3d 607, 610 (8th Cir. 2012). In this case, pursuant to § 2244(d)(1)(A), the one-year period began to run on “the date on which the [state court] judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review[.]” See, e.g., Johnson, 678 F.3d at 610. “Review of a state criminal conviction by the United States Supreme Court is considered direct review of the conviction.” King v. Hobbs, 666 F.3d 1132, 1135 (8th Cir. 2012) (quoting Smith v. Bowersox, 159 F.3d 345, 347 (8th Cir. 1998)). When the United States Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review the state court judgment and the petitioner does not seek such review, the state court judgment becomes final when the petitioner's time for requesting a writ of certiorari expires. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 132 S.Ct. 641, 653-54 (2012).

         Section 2244(d)(2) provides for the tolling of the one-year statutory period for “[t]he time during which a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending[.]” See, e.g., Johnson, 678 F.3d at 610. The time between the conclusion of direct review of the state court judgment and the filing of an application for state post-conviction relief counts against the one-year period. Painter v. Iowa, 247 F.3d 1255, 1256 (8th Cir. 2001). “A state postconviction action ‘remains pending' for the purpose of federal tolling ‘until the application has achieved final resolution through the State's postconviction procedures.'” Steen v. Schuetzle, 326 Fed.Appx. 972, 973 (8th Cir. 2009) (quoting Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214, 220 (2002)). A postconviction proceeding appealed to the North Dakota Supreme Court remains pending until the Court issues its mandate. Steen, 326 Fed.Appx. at 974 (citing Finch v. Backes, 491 N.W.2d 705, 707 (N.D. 1992); N.D.C.C. § 28-05-10).

         A pro se prisoner's habeas petition is deemed filed on the date it is delivered to prison officials for mailing to the clerk of court. Nichols v. Bowersox, 172 F.3d 1068, 1077 (8th Cir. 1999), abrogated on other grounds by Riddle v. Kemna, 523 F.3d 850 (8th Cir. 2008). Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a) generally governs the calculation of AEDPA time limits. Wright v. Norris, 299 F.3d 926, 927 n.2 (8th Cir. 2002).

         III. DISCUSSION

         A. Application of § 2244(d)(1)(A)

         As noted above, Robinson was sentenced on January 11, 2012. An amended judgment of conviction was filed by the state district court on February 2, 2012. Under state rules of appellate procedure, Robinson had thirty days in which to file a direct appeal of his conviction with the North Dakota Supreme Court. N.D. R. App. P. Rule 4(b)(1)(A) (“In a criminal case, a defendant's notice of appeal must be filed with the clerk of the supreme court within 30 days after the entry of the judgment or order being appealed.”). As Robinson did not file a direct appeal, the judgment of conviction became final for purposes of AEDPA and his one-year window in which to file a § 2254 petition commenced on March 5, 2012. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A) (stating in relevant part that the one-year period began to run upon expiration of the time for seeking direct review). Cf. In re Jose Carlos Belmont, No. SA-15-MC-856-OG, 2015 WL 12748173, at * 2 (W.D. Tx. Oct. 8, 2015) (citing Mark v. Thaler, 646 F.3d 191 (5th Cir. 2011), for the proposition that, when a “state criminal defendant chose not to file an appeal from his conviction, his conviction becomes final for purposes of the AEDPA's one-year limitations period thirty days from the date of his sentencing.”). His deadline for filing a § 2254 petition lapsed on March 5, 2013.

         The record reflects that Robinson filed an application for postconviction relief on December 27, 2013, or almost ten months after his one-year window in which to file a § 2254 petition had closed. As Robinson's deadline for petitioning this court for habeas corpus relief lapsed well before he initiated post-conviction ...


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.