Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_07-cv-00294/USCOURTS-almd-2_07-cv-00294-0/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

Petitioner pled guilty to three counts of unlawful distribution of a controlled substance and two

counts of selling to a minor. (Doc. No. 7, Exh. B.) 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

 ____________________________

JOHN STEPHEN COLEMAN, SR., *

#223 809

Petitioner, *

v. * 2:07-CV-294-MHT

 (WO)

WARDEN DAVENPORT, 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 John Coleman, Sr., on April 5, 2007. In this petition, Petitioner challenges

his convictions for drug offenses entered against him by the Circuit Court for Bullock

County, Alabama, on November 15, 2004 pursuant to his guilty pleas.1

 On December 9, 2004

the trial court sentenced Petitioner to a twenty year term of imprisonment on each count of

unlawful distribution of a controlled substance. Petitioner received a 99 year term of

imprisonment on each conviction for selling to a minor. Each sentence was ordered to run

consecutively. (Doc. No. 7, Exhs. A, B, C.) 

Petitioner filed a written notice to withdraw his guilty pleas on December 17, 2004.

The motion was denied by operation of law on February 7, 2005 pursuant to A.R.Cr.P. 24.4.

The trial court issued a written order on March 7, 2005 denying Petitioner’s request to

Case 2:07-cv-00294-MHT-SRW Document 8 Filed 05/04/07 Page 1 of 5
2

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

withdraw his guilty pleas. On March 22, 2005 Petitioner filed written notice of appeal with

the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals. On November 10, 2005 the appellate court

dismissed the appeal as untimely filed. Petitioner filed a petition for writ of certiorari on

February 26, 2007. On March 14, 2007 the Alabama Supreme Court ordered the petition

stricken as untimely under Rule 39(c)(2), A.R.A.P. (Doc. No. 7, Exhs. D, E, F, G, I.)

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).2

 Respondents contend that because

Petitioner’s convictions became final in March 2005 -- after the effective date of the statute

of limitations -- he must have filed his § 2254 petition within a year of this conviction

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 October 3, 2006. They argue, however, that the petition did not toll

the one-year period of limitation 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 applicable case law, it appears that

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

Case 2:07-cv-00294-MHT-SRW Document 8 Filed 05/04/07 Page 2 of 5
3

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 entered guilty pleas to three counts of unlawful

distribution of a controlled substance, marijuana, and two counts of selling, furnishing, or

giving a controlled substance, marijuana, to a minor in the Circuit Court for Bullock County,

Alabama, on November 15, 2004. On December 4, 2004 he was sentenced, as a habitual

offender, to 20 years imprisonment on each of the three distribution convictions and to 99

years on each conviction for distribution to a minor. Petitioner’s motion to withdraw his

guilty pleas, filed December 17, 2004, was denied by operation of law on February 7, 2005.

See A.R.Cr.P., 24.4 (“No motion for new trial . . . shall remain pending in the trial court for

more than sixty (60) days after pronouncement of sentence, except as provided in this

section.”). Thus, by operation of law, Petitioner’s time to appeal his convictions and

sentence began to run on February 8, 2005 and expired on March 21, 2005. Petitioner’s

notice of appeal, considered by the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals as having been filed

on March 22, 2005, was, therefore, dismissed as untimely filed. Since Petitioner failed to

properly undertake the direct appeal process, he could not petition the United States Supreme

Court for review of his convictions. Petitioner’s drug convictions, therefore, became final,

at the latest, on March 21, 2005, forty-two days after his motion to withdraw his guilty plea

was denied by operation of law as this is the date on which his time to seek direct review

expired. See Rule 4(b)(1), Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure. The one-year period of

Case 2:07-cv-00294-MHT-SRW Document 8 Filed 05/04/07 Page 3 of 5
3

Petitioner filed a Rule 32 petition in state court on October 3, 2006 - more than six months

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

4

limitation contained in section 2244(d)(1)(A) therefore began to run on this date and ran

uninterrupted until the limitation period expired on March 21, 2006. (Doc. No. 7, Exh. B, C,

D, E, F, G.) 

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

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 October 3, 2006 had no affect on the running of the

limitation period applicable to the instant federal habeas petition. Webster, 199 F.3d at

1259. (Doc. No. 7, Exh. I.) 

Case 2:07-cv-00294-MHT-SRW Document 8 Filed 05/04/07 Page 4 of 5
5

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 May 24, 2007 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 4th day of May 2007.

 /s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:07-cv-00294-MHT-SRW Document 8 Filed 05/04/07 Page 5 of 5