Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_09-cv-00279/USCOURTS-almd-2_09-cv-00279-0/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)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

 ____________________________

LAWRENCE PATRICK PHILLIPS, *

#243 212

Petitioner, *

v. * 2:09-CV-279-WHA

 (WO)

GARY HETZEL, WARDEN, 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 Lawrence Phillips on March 18, 2009. In this petition, Petitioner

challenges his convictions for first degree assault, unlawful possession of marijuana in the

first degree, and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia entered against him by the Circuit

Court for Covington County, Alabama in October 2005. The trial court sentenced Petitioner

to consecutive sentences of twenty years imprisonment on the assault conviction, five years

imprisonment on the unlawful possession of marijuana conviction, and one year

imprisonment on the unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia conviction. The Alabama

Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Petitioner’s conviction on June 16, 2006 and issued a

certificate of judgment on July 6, 2006. Petitioner’s conviction became final by operation

of law on July 20, 2006.

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

Case 2:09-cv-00279-WHA-WC Document 12 Filed 05/20/09 Page 1 of 5
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.

2

U.S.C. § 2254 petitions. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).1 Respondents contend that because

Petitioner’s convictions became final in 2006- after the effective date of the statute of

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 November 8, 2007. That petition did not toll the one-year period of

limitation, however, because it was filed after expiration of the limitation period and was,

therefore, not pending as required by the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) for purposes

of tolling the requisite time period. See Webster v. Moore, 199 F.3d 1256, 1259 (11th Cir.

2000); Tinker v. Moore, 255 F.3d 1331, 1333-1335 n.4 (11th Cir. 2001). 

Upon review of the pleadings filed in this case and the law of this Circuit, it appears

that Petitioner’s § 2254 petition is precluded from review by this court as it was filed outside

the applicable 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 first degree assault, unlawful

possession of marijuana in the first degree, and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia

by the Circuit Court for Covington County, Alabama, on October 5, 2005. Petitioner filed

a direct appeal. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Petitioner’s convictions

Case 2:09-cv-00279-WHA-WC Document 12 Filed 05/20/09 Page 2 of 5
2

Respondents’ contention that Petitioner’s conviction became final on July 6, 2006 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 with the Alabama Supreme Court.

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

on June 16, 2006 and issued a certificate of judgment on July 6, 2006. 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

2006 convictions, 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.2

 Rule 39(b), Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure; see Coates v.

Byrd, 211 F.3d 1225 (11th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1166, 121 S.Ct. 1129 (2001); 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 convictions became final on July 20, 2006 and the one-year limitation period

contained in section 2244(d)(1)(A) began to run on this date and ran uninterrupted until the

limitation period expired on July 21, 2007. (Doc. No. 10, Exhs. A-F.) 

 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.” Although Petitioner filed a Rule 32 petition, this petition was not pending during

Case 2:09-cv-00279-WHA-WC Document 12 Filed 05/20/09 Page 3 of 5
3

Petitioner’s Rule 32 petition, filed in state court on November 8, 2007, was filed more than three

months after § 2244(d)’s one-year period of limitation had expired. 

4

Respondents’ assertion that the filing of Petitioner’s Rule 32 petition on November 8, 2008

temporarily tolled the running of the limitation period is incorrect as the one-year limitation period had

already expired by the time Petitioner filed his post-conviction petition. Thus, when Petitioner filed his Rule

32 petition no time remained to be tolled under § 2244(d)’s limitation period.

4

the running of the limitation period as it was filed after expiration of this time period.3

“[E]ven ‘properly filed’ state-court petitions must be ‘pending’ [during the one-year period

of limitation] in order to toll the limitations period. A state court petition . . . that is filed

following the expiration of the limitations period cannot toll that period because there is no

period remaining to be tolled.” Webster, 199 F.3d at 1259; see also Tinker, 255 F.3d at 1333,

1335. n.4 (11th Cir. 2001) (“[A] properly filed petition in state court only tolls the time

remaining within the federal limitation period.”). It is, therefore, clear that the state postconviction petition filed by Petitioner on November 8, 2007 had no affect on the running of

the limitation period applicable to the instant federal habeas petition.4

 Webster, 199 F.3d at

1259.

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 prior to Petitioner filing the instant

§ 2254 petition. In light of the foregoing, it is 

ORDERED that on or before June 10, 2009 Petitioner shall show cause why his

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

Case 2:09-cv-00279-WHA-WC Document 12 Filed 05/20/09 Page 4 of 5
5

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

Done, this 20th day of May 2009.

 /s/ Wallace Capel, Jr. 

WALLACE CAPEL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-00279-WHA-WC Document 12 Filed 05/20/09 Page 5 of 5