Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-3_14-cv-00007/USCOURTS-almd-3_14-cv-00007-1/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 

FORTHE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

EASTERN DIVISION 

JOHNNY HUGHLEY, ) 

 ) 

 Petitioner, ) 

 ) 

vs. ) CASE NO. 3:14-cv-007-WHA 

 ) 

LUTHER STRANGE, et al., ) (WO) 

 ) 

 Respondents. ) 

ORDER

 This case is before the court on the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. #21), 

and the Petitioner’s Objection (Doc. #22). The court has conducted an independent evaluation 

and de novo review of the file in this case and, having done so, concludes that the objection is 

without merit. 

 In June 2012, Hughley pled guilty in the Circuit Court of Lee County to violating the 

Community Notification Act, §15-20-26, Ala. Code 1975. That court sentenced him as a 

habitual felony offender to 15 years in prison. As stated in the Magistrate Judge’s 

Recommendation, that conviction became final on August 7, 2012 – giving Hughley until 

August 7, 2013, to file a timely § 2254 petition, absent tolling. Hughley establishes no basis for 

tolling. He filed his § 2254 petition on December 31, 2013. Therefore, as stated in the 

Recommendation, his attack on his Community Notification conviction is untimely. 

 In his objections, Hughley maintains he had a Rule 32 petition pending in state court 

while the federal statute of limitations was running, tolling the federal statute of limitations under 

§ 2244(d)(2). However, the Rule 32 petition he refers to was directed at a different state 

Case 3:14-cv-00007-WHA-TFM Document 23 Filed 04/26/16 Page 1 of 3
conviction, in a different county (Chambers, not Lee). As such, it did not toll the federal statute 

of limitations under § 2244(d)(2) for his Lee County Community Notification conviction. 

 Hughley also alleges that an old (1987) second-degree rape conviction that was the sex 

offense underlying his current Community Notification conviction (but not his habitual offender 

sentence enhancement) was set aside by order of a trial judge in 2014, some 27 years after the 

conviction was entered (and also after the sentence on that conviction had been served). Even if 

this is so, nothing in the record reflects that the alleged ruling in the second-degree rape case 

resulted in the overturning of Hughley’s Community Notification conviction attacked in his 

instant § 2254 petition. And it must be assumed that the Community Notification conviction has 

not been overturned, else Hughley would say as much (and this § 2254 case would be moot). 

 Nothing in the record indicates that a state court has set aside Hughley’s Community 

Notification conviction. As stated in the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation, that conviction 

became final in August 2012, the statute of limitations expired in August 2013, and Hughley’s 

attack on that judgment is untimely. 

 Hughley attempts to evade the time-bar by challenging several state and federal 

convictions used to sentence him as a habitual offender for the Community Notification 

conviction. His sentences for those prior convictions have fully expired, and he fails to meet the 

exception to Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488 (1989), recognized in Lackawanna County Dist. Att’y 

v. Coss, 532 U.S. 394 (2001), because he was represented by counsel for all prior convictions 

used to enhance his current sentence. As also noted in the Recommendation, Hughley has on 

numberous prior occasions sought to attack those old convictions in state and federal court, and 

further attacks on those convictions would be procedurally barred as successive. 

 Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 

Case 3:14-cv-00007-WHA-TFM Document 23 Filed 04/26/16 Page 2 of 3
 1. Petitioner’s objection is OVERRULED. 

 2. The court ADOPTS the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and this petition 

for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED, as the petition is time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), 

and Hughley establishes no basis for federal habeas corpus relief. 

 3. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice. 

 DONE this 26th day of April, 2016. 

 /s/ W. Harold Albritton 

 W. HAROLD ALBRITTON 

 SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:14-cv-00007-WHA-TFM Document 23 Filed 04/26/16 Page 3 of 3