Source: http://nm.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180730_0001562.DNM.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 23:16:24+00:00

Document:
R. MARTINEZ, Warden, HECTOR BALDERAS, Attorney General of the State of New Mexico, Respondents.
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Eric Paul Kenneth's responses to the Court's May 3, 2018 Order To Show Cause, which required Petitioner to show cause why his Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 For Writ Of Habeas Corpus By A Person In State Custody should not be dismissed as untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). [Docs. 8, 9; see Doc. 6] Petitioner contends that his § 2254 petition should not be dismissed because he is entitled to statutory and equitable tolling of the one-year limitation period. [Docs. 8, 9] For the reasons explained below, Petitioner's § 2254 petition will be dismissed with prejudice as untimely filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A), all pending motions will be denied as moot, a certificate of appealability will be denied, and judgment will be entered.
There is a one-year limitation period on the filing of a § 2254 petition, which begins to run, in relevant part, on “the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of time for seeking such review.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). The New Mexico Supreme Court denied Petitioner's petition for writ of certiorari on January 5, 2016 and Petitioner had ninety days in which to file a timely petition for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. See U.S. Sup. Ct. R. 13.1 (providing that a petition for a writ of certiorari to review a judgment of a state court of last resort is timely filed “within 90 days after the entry of judgment'). Petitioner did not file a petition for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court and, therefore, his conviction became final on the expiration of the ninety-day filing period-April 4, 2016. See Locke v. Saffle, 237 F.3d 1269, 1273 (10th Cir. 2001) (holding, under § 2244(d)(1)(A), that “a petitioner's conviction is not final and the one-year limitation period for filing a federal habeas petition does not begin to run until-following a decision by the state court of last resort-after the United States Supreme Court has denied review, or, if no petition for certiorari is filed, after the time for filing a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court has passed.”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Therefore, absent the application of statutory or equitable tolling, the deadline to file a timely § 2254 petition was April 4, 2017.
Petitioner appears to contend that he is entitled to statutory tolling under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) during the pendency of his Motion for Reconsideration of Sentence. [Doc. 8] The Court recognizes that “a properly filed motion for modification of sentence under New Mexico Rule of Criminal Procedure 5-801(B) tolls the one-year limitation period in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).” Howard v. Ulibarri, 457 F.3d 1146, 1150 (10th Cir. 2006). Petitioner's motion, however, was not properly filed, because it was submitted more than ninety days after the imposition of his sentence. See NMRA 5-801(A); Habteselassie v. Novak, 209 F.3d 1208, 1210-11 (10th Cir. 2000) (holding that “a ‘properly filed' application is one filed according to the filing requirements for a motion for state post-conviction relief, ” which may include “the place and time of filing”). Regardless, even if the one-year limitation period was tolled during the pendency of Petitioner's motion, his § 2254 petition nonetheless would be time-barred. Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration of Sentence was pending for twenty-two days (from June 7, 2016 to June 29, 2016) and Petitioner had thirty-days to appeal the denial of his motion under New Mexico Rule of Appellate Procedure 12-201(A)(1)(b). [See Doc. 8 at 9] Fifty-two days of statutory tolling (twenty-two days plus thirty days) only would extend the filing deadline to May 29, 2017. Petitioner's § 2254 petition was not filed, however, until six months later, on November 29, 2017. Therefore, even if Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration of Sentence qualified for statutory tolling under § 2244(d)(2), Petitioner's § 2254 petition still was not filed within the one-year limitation period.
Alternatively, Petitioner appears to contend that the one-year limitation did not commence until after he had exhausted his state court remedies under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A). [Doc. 9] Petitioner's contention is contradicted by the plain language of § 2244(d)(1)(A), which provides that the one-year “limitation period shall run from . . . the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review.” §2244(d)(1)(A). Although statutory tolling under § 2244(d)(2) stops the running of the limitation period during the time in “which a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending, ” § 2244(d)(1), this provision only applies to “state petitions for post-conviction relief filed within the one year allowed by AEDPA.” Clark v. Oklahoma, 468 F.3d 711, 714 (10th Cir. 2006); see also Fisher v. Gibson, 262 F.3d 1135, 1142-43 (10th Cir. 2001) (holding that the petitioner was not entitled to statutory tolling because his application for state post-conviction relief was filed after the expiration of the one-year limitation period). Statutory “[t]olling does not revive the federal limitations period-i.e., restart the clock at zero; it can serve only to pause a clock that has not already run.” Sherard v. Utah, No. 2:13-CV-00298-TC, 2015 WL 6132603, at *2 (D. Utah Oct. 16, 2015) (unpublished). The one-year limitation period to file a timely § 2254 petition had expired before Petitioner filed his state petition for writ of habeas corpus on July 24, 2017 and, therefore, Petitioner is not entitled to statutory tolling under § 2244(d)(2).

References: § 2254
 § 2244
 § 2254
 § 2254
 § 2244
 § 2254
 § 2244
 v. 
 § 2244
 § 2254
 § 2244
 § 2244
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2254
 § 2254
 § 2244
 § 2254
 § 2254
 § 2244
 §2244
 § 2244
 § 2244
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2254
 § 2244