Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-3_09-cv-00433/USCOURTS-almd-3_09-cv-00433-0/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)

---

1

Subsection (d) was added by the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (the

“AEDPA”). This Act became effective on April 24, 1996.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

 ____________________________

DAVID DAFNEY, #198 771 *

Petitioner, *

v. * 3:09-CV-433-TMH

 (WO)

WARDEN J.C. GILES, et al., *

Respondents. *

 _______________________________

ORDER

This cause is before the court on a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus relief

filed by Petitioner, David Dafney, on May 7, 2009. In this petition, Petitioner challenges his

conviction for attempted murder entered against him by the Circuit Court for Macon County,

Alabama, on November 5, 1998. On December 15, 1998 the trial court sentenced Petitioner

to a term of 99 years imprisonment. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed

Petitioner’s conviction on August 6, 1999 and issued a certificate of judgment on September

21, 1999. By operation of law, Petitioner’s conviction became final on October 5, 1999.

Pursuant to the orders of this court, Respondents filed an answer in which they argue

that the instant habeas petition is barred by the one-year limitation period applicable to 28

U.S.C. § 2254 petitions. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).1

 Respondents contend that because

Petitioner’s convictions became final in 1999- after the effective date of the statute of

Case 3:09-cv-00433-TMH-CSC Document 11 Filed 07/07/09 Page 1 of 4
2

This is the date Petitioner signed his Rule 32 petition. The law is well settled that a pro se inmate’s

petition is deemed filed the date it is delivered to prison officials for mailing. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266,

271-272 (1988); Adams v. United States, 173 F.3d 1339, 1340-41 (11th Cir. 1999); Garvey v. Vaughn, 993

F.2d 776, 780 (11th Cir. 1993). “Absent evidence to the contrary in the form of prison logs or other records,

[this court] must assume that [the state petition] was delivered to prison authorities the day [Dafney] signed

it . . .” Washington v. United States, 243 F.3d 1299, 1301 (11th Cir. 2001). 

2

limitations -- he must have filed his § 2254 petition within a year of these convictions

becoming final, exclusive of the time that any properly filed state post-conviction petition

was pending in the state courts. Respondents concede that Petitioner filed a Rule 32 petition

with the trial court on February 14, 2000.2

 They maintain, however, that even allowing a

tolling of the limitation period during the pendency of this Rule 32 petition, the limitation

period expired prior to Petitioner filing the present federal habeas petition. (Doc. No. 10 at

8-10.); see also Webster v. Moore, 199 F.3d 1256, 1259 (11th Cir.); Tinker v. Moore, 255

F.3d 1331, 1333- 1335. n.4 (11th Cir. 2001). Upon review of the pleadings filed in this case

and applicable case law, it appears that Petitioner’s § 2254 petition is precluded from review

by this court as it was filed outside the pertinent period of limitation. 

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A) directs that the limitation period for filing a 28 U.S.C. §

2254 petition begins to run on the date when the time for seeking direct review of the

challenged judgment expires. Petitioner was convicted of attempted murder in the Circuit

Court for Macon County, Alabama, on November 5, 1998. On December 15, 1998 the trial

court imposed sentence on Petitioner. Petitioner filed a direct appeal. The Alabama Court

of Criminal Appeals affirmed Petitioner’s conviction on August 6, 1999 and overruled his

application for rehearing on September 3, 1999. Petitioner did not further appeal his

Case 3:09-cv-00433-TMH-CSC Document 11 Filed 07/07/09 Page 2 of 4
3

Respondents’ contention that Petitioner’s conviction became final on September 21, 1999, upon

issuance of the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals’ certificate of judgment, fails to take into account the

fourteen days within which Petitioner could have filed a petition for writ of certiorari. Upon expiration of

the fourteen days within which Petitioner could have filed a petition for writ of certiorari after the appellate

court’s issuance of a certificate of judgment, his conviction became final. 

3

conviction and the appellate court issued a certificate of judgment on September 21, 1999.

Since Petitioner did not seek further relief from the Alabama Supreme Court, he was not

entitled to file a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court and the time for

seeking review of the 1998 attempted murder conviction, therefore, lapsed upon expiration

of the time for filing a petition for writ of certiorari with the Alabama Supreme Court --

fourteen (14) days from the issuance of the certificate of judgment.3

 Rule 39(b), Alabama

Rules of Appellate Procedure; see Coates v. Byrd, 211 F.3d 1225 (11th Cir. 2000); see also

Rule 13.1, Rules of the United States Supreme Court (a petition for writ of certiorari may

only be filed to review a judgment or order entered by a state court of last resort and must

be filed within ninety (90) days of the action undertaken by such state court). Thus,

Petitioner's attempted murder conviction became final on October 5, 1999 and the one-year

limitation period contained in section 2244(d)(1)(A) began to run on this date. (Doc. No.

10, Exhs. A, B, D-H.) 

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) provides that “[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 shall not be counted toward any period of limitation under this

section.” The court finds that the limitation period ran for 132 days after Petitioner’s

conviction became final until the filing of a Rule 32 petition in the Circuit Court for Macon

Case 3:09-cv-00433-TMH-CSC Document 11 Filed 07/07/09 Page 3 of 4
4

County on February 14, 2000. The trial court denied the petition on September 21, 2000.

Petitioner did not appeal the denial of his post-conviction petition, and thus, his Rule 32

petition became final 42 days later, on November 2, 2000, after the time for filing an appeal

had run. As of the aforementioned date, Petitioner had 233 days of the applicable limitation

period remaining within which to file a federal habeas petition. The court, therefore,

concludes that the time allowed Petitioner for the filing of a federal habeas petition expired

on June 23, 2001. (Doc No. 10, Exhs. I-J.)

Petitioner filed his federal habeas petition on May 7, 2009. Under the circumstances

of this case as outlined in this order, the one-year period of limitation contained in 28 U.S.C.

§ 2244(d)(1) expired more than seven years prior to Petitioner filing the instant § 2254

petition. In light of the foregoing, it is 

ORDERED that on or before July 28, 2009 Petitioner shall show cause why his

federal habeas petition should not be denied as it was not filed within the one-year limitation

period established by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). 

Done, this 7th day of July 2009.

 /s/ Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-00433-TMH-CSC Document 11 Filed 07/07/09 Page 4 of 4