UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SHANE A. HARROLD,

Petitioner, 

 Civil Action No. 3:13-CV-98-JVB

v.

SUPERINTENDENT,

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER

Shane A. Harrold, a prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this habeas corpus petition to

challenge his conviction for murder and the sixty-five-year sentence he received in the

Huntington Circuit Court, under cause number 35C01-0101-CF-3. However, a habeas corpus

petition that challenges a state-court conviction is subject to a one-year statute of limitations. 

(1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas

corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The

limitation period shall run from the latest of--

(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of

direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review;

(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application created by

State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is

removed, if the applicant was prevented from filing by such State action;

(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially

recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly recognized by the

Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or

(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims

presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.

(2) The 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 subsection.

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Question 16 on the habeas corpus form includes the full text of § 2244(d)

and asks the petitioner to explain why the petition is timely. Nothing in his response to that

question, nor anything else in these filings, indicates that the state prevented Harrold from filing
a habeas petition sooner, that his claims are based on a newly recognized Constitutional right, or

that his claims are based on newly discovered evidence. Therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2244(d)(1)(A), the one-year period of limitation began to run on “the date on which the

judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for

seeking such review.”

Harrold states in his petition that he took a direct appeal that concluded when the Indiana

Supreme Court denied his petition to transfer on October 23, 2006. Harrold did not petition the

United States Supreme Court for certiorari, so his conviction became final when the deadline for

doing so passed on January 22, 2007. See Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. __; 132 S. Ct. 641,

653–54 (2012). (“[T]he judgment becomes final . . .when the time for pursuing direct review . . .

expires.”). Thus, on January 23, 2007, the one-year period of limitation began. A year later, on

January 23, 2008, the time for filing a habeas corpus petition expired. Though a pending postconviction relief petition tolls the one-year period of limitation, because the allowable time for

filing a habeas corpus petition had already expired by the time that Harrold filed his postconviction relief petition on April 26, 2008, it was too late to affect the timeliness of this habeas

corpus petition. Harrold signed this habeas corpus petition on January 24, 2013, nearly five years

after the expiration of the time for filing a habeas corpus petition. Therefore this petition is

untimely and must be dismissed.

Pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 11, the court must consider whether to

grant or deny a certificate of appealability. To obtain a certificate of appealability when the court

dismisses a petition on procedural grounds, the petitioner must show that reasonable jurists

would find it debatable (1) whether the court was correct in its procedural ruling and (2) whether

2
the petition states a valid claim for denial of a constitutional right. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.

473, 484 (2000). This habeas corpus petition was filed after the expiration of the one-year period

of limitation. Because there is no basis for finding that jurists of reason would debate the

correctness of this procedural ruling, a certificate of appealability must be denied. 

For the foregoing reasons, the court DISMISSES this habeas corpus petition as untimely

pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 4 and DENIES a certificate of appealability

pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 11.

SO ORDERED on February 21, 2013.

 s/ Joseph S. Van Bokkelen 

JOSEPH S. VAN BOKKELEN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3