Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-5_12-cv-03916/USCOURTS-alnd-5_12-cv-03916-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHEASTERN DIVISION

THADDEUS CORDELRO FORD,

Petitioner,

v.

CHIEF MORRISON and the

ATTORNEY GENERAL of the STATE

of ALABAMA,

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 5:12-cv-03916-WMA-SGC

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an action on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254 by Thaddeus Cordelro Ford, a state prisoner proceeding pro se. (Doc.

1). The magistrate judge entered a report and recommendation on January 26, 2016,

recommending Ford’s § 2254 petition be denied as barred by the statute of limitations

provided by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A) and procedurally defaulted. (Doc. 6).

Furthermore, in accordance with Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254Cases,

the magistrate judge recommended a certificate of appealability be denied.(Id.). Ford

has filed objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. (Doc. 9).

For the reasons discussed below, those objections are due to be overruled.

As set out in the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation:

FILED

 2016 Mar-15 PM 02:31

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 5:12-cv-03916-WMA-SGC Document 10 Filed 03/15/16 Page 1 of 4
On November 14, 2007, Ford pleaded guilty to second degree assault

and first degree robbery. On that same day, the Circuit Court of

Madison County, Alabama sentenced Ford to a 10-year splitsentence as

to the assault conviction, with three years to be served in the custody of

the Alabama Department of Corrections, followed by a period of

probation. Simultaneously, the state circuit court sentenced Ford to a

concurrent 20-year split sentence as to the robbery conviction, with 3

years to be served in the custody of the Alabama Department of

Corrections, followed by a period of probation. Ford did not appeal

either conviction directly. He did not challenge either conviction in

post-conviction proceedings, either. 

Although it appears Ford completed the original custodial portions of

his sentences, the Madison County Circuit Court revoked the

probationary portions of those sentences on August 7, 2013. Ford filed

the instant § 2254 petition in this court on October 18, 2012. He alleges

his guilty plea was unlawfully induced or involuntary because he

believed he was accepting a 10-year splitsentence, exclusively, and only

learned he received a 20-year split sentence, as well, when he was

released from incarceration after serving the original custodial portions

of his sentences. He also alleges his attorney rendered ineffective

assistance by failing to inform him he was accepting both a 10-year split

sentence and a 20-year split sentence.

(Doc. 6 at 1-2) (internal citations and footnote omitted). 

The magistrate judge commenced the limitations period from§ 2244(d)(1)(A),

the date on which Ford’s conviction became final by the conclusion of direct review

or the expiration of time to seek that review, rather than any of the other three

possibilities provided by § 2244(d), including § 2244(d)(1)(D), which provides for

commencement of the limitations period from the date on which the factual predicate

of a petitioner’s claim could have been discovered through the exercise of due

2

Case 5:12-cv-03916-WMA-SGC Document 10 Filed 03/15/16 Page 2 of 4
diligence. (Id. at 3-4). The magistrate judge specifically noted § 2244(d)(1)(D) did

not trigger the limitations period because while Ford alleges he did not learn of his

20-year split sentence until his release from incarceration after serving the original

custodial portions of his sentences, he alleges no facts that would indicate this

information could not have been known to him through the exercise of reasonable

diligence. (Id. at 3). 

In his objections, Ford argues he had no reason to question or inquire as to his

sentences before the revocation of his probation because his attorney told him that he

was to serve only a 10-year split sentence and documentation he received while

incarcerated reflected the same. (Doc. 9). These bare allegations, unsupported by any

documentation or detail that might lend them credence, fail to demonstrate the

diligence necessary to warrant commencement of the limitations period from §

2244(d)(1)(D) rather than § 2244(d)(1)(A), justify equitable tolling of the limitations

period, or show cause sufficient to excuse procedural default. See Holland v. Florida,

560 U.S. 631, 649 (2010) (petitioner bears burden of showing he has been pursuing

hisrights diligently and some extraordinary circumstance prevented his timelyfiling);

Ward v. Hall, 592 F.3d 1144, 1157 (11th Cir. 2010) (petitioner must show cause and

prejudice to overcome procedural default of claim). Thisis particularly true given the

guilty pleas signed by Ford unequivocally state the district attorney would

3

Case 5:12-cv-03916-WMA-SGC Document 10 Filed 03/15/16 Page 3 of 4
recommend a 20-year split sentence in connection with the robbery charge, to be

served concurrently with a recommended 10-year split sentence in connection with

the assault charge. See State v. Ford, 47-CC-001578.00 at Doc. 8 at 5-6; State v.

Ford, 47-CC-2006-005867.00 at Doc. 10 at 4-5. For these reasons, Ford’s objections

to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation are OVERRULED.

After careful consideration of the record in this case and the magistrate judge’s

report, the court ADOPTS that report and ACCEPTS the magistrate judge’s

recommendations. Accordingly, Ford’s § 2254 petition is due to be denied as timebarred and procedurally defaulted. Furthermore, for the reasonsset forth in the report

and recommendation and pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254

Cases, a certificate of appealability is DENIED.

A final judgment will be entered.

DONE this 15th day of March, 2016.

_____________________________

WILLIAM M. ACKER, JR.

UNITED STATESDISTRICT JUDGE

4

Case 5:12-cv-03916-WMA-SGC Document 10 Filed 03/15/16 Page 4 of 4