Source: http://mi.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20150401_0001150.EMI.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2016-12-07 14:21:09
Document Index: 752034852

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2254', '§ 2244', '§ 2244', '§ 2244', '§ 2244', '§ 2244']

| Dixon v. MacLaren
Dixon v. MacLaren
HAMIN DIXON, Petitioner,v.DUNCAN MacLAREN, Respondent.
Hamin Dixon, ("Petitioner"), incarcerated at the Kinross Correctional Facility in Kincheloe, Michigan, seeks the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 2254. In his pro se application, petitioner challenges his conviction for delivery of cocaine, M.C.L.A. 333.7401(2)(a)(iv); and being a third felony habitual offender, M.C.L.A. 769.11. Respondent has filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that the petition was not timely filed in accordance with the statute of limitations contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(1). For the reasons stated below, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is summarily dismissed.
Petitioner pleaded guilty to the above charge in the St. Clair County Circuit Court. Petitioner was sentenced on October 15, 2004 to one and a half to forty years in prison.
Petitioner, by his own admission, did not appeal his conviction to the Michigan Court of Appeals or Michigan Supreme Court.
On May 23, 2012, Petitioner filed a post-conviction motion for relief from judgment with the trial court. After the trial court and the Michigan Court of Appeals denied Petitioner post-conviction relief, collateral review of Petitioner's conviction ended in the state courts on May 28, 2013, when the Michigan Supreme Court denied Petitioner's application for leave to appeal the denial of his post-conviction motion. People v. Dixon, 494 Mich. 854; 830 N.W.2d 764 (2013).
On May 2, 2014, Petitioner filed the current petition for writ of habeas corpus.[1]
Respondent filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).[2]
Summary judgment is appropriate "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Sanders v. Freeman, 221 F.3d 846, 851 (6th Cir. 2000)(quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)). To defeat a motion for summary judgment, the non-moving party must set forth specific facts sufficient to show that a reasonable factfinder could return a verdict in his favor. Id. The summary judgment rule applies to habeas proceedings. See Redmond v. Jackson, 295 F.Supp.2d 767, 770 (E.D. Mich. 2003).
Although not jurisdictional, the AEDPA's one year limitations period "effectively bars relief absent a showing that the petition's untimeliness should be excused based on equitable tolling and actual innocence." See Akrawi v. Booker, 572 F.3d 252, 260 (6th Cir. 2009) . A petition for writ of habeas corpus must be dismissed where it has not been filed within the one year statute of limitations. See Holloway v. Jones, 166 F.Supp.2d 1185, 1187 (E.D. Mich. 2001). A merits decision is unnecessary where a district court denies a habeas petition on statute of limitations grounds. See Bachman v. Bagley, 487 F.3d 979, 982 (6th Cir. 2007).
The Court must initially determine when Petitioner's conviction became "final", in order to determine when the limitations period began running. See Williams v. Wilson, 149 Fed.Appx. 342, 345 (6th Cir. 2005). For purposes of commencing the one year limitations period pursuant to § 2244(d)(1)(A), a state-court judgment becomes "final" when direct review by the state court ends or when the time to seek direct review expires, whichever comes later. See Wilberger v. Carter, 35 F.Appx. 111, 114 (6th Cir. 2002).
Petitioner was sentenced on October 15, 2004. At the time of Petitioner's conviction, he had twelve months after his sentence pursuant to M.C.R. 7.205(F)(3) to file a delayed application for leave to appeal.[3] Because Petitioner never filed a direct appeal from his conviction and sentence, his judgment of sentence became finalized, for the purposes of § 2244(d)(1)(A), one year after the sentencing, when the one year time limit for filing a direct appeal in the Michigan Court of Appeals expired pursuant to M.C.R. 7.205(F)(3). See Williams v. Birkett, 670 F.3d 729, 731 (6th Cir. 2012). Petitioner's conviction became final on October 15, 2005. Petitioner had until October 15, 2006 to timely file a petition for writ of habeas corpus with this Court, unless the limitations period was somehow tolled.
Petitioner filed a post-conviction motion for relief from judgment on May 23, 2012, after the one year limitations period had already expired. A state court post-conviction motion that is filed following the expiration of the limitations period cannot toll that period pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) because there is no period remaining to be tolled. See Hargrove v. Brigano, 300 F.3d 717, 718, n. 1 (6th Cir. 2002); see also Jurado v. Burt, 337 F.3d 638, 641 (6th Cir. 2003). Therefore, Petitioner's state post-conviction proceedings did not toll the running of the statute of limitations and the instant petition is untimely.
The AEDPA's statute of limitations "is subject to equitable tolling in appropriate cases." Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 645 (2010). A habeas petitioner is entitled to equitable tolling "only if he shows (1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way'" and prevented the timely filing of the habeas petition. Id. at 649 (quoting Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418 (2005)). The Sixth Circuit has observed that "the doctrine of equitable tolling is used sparingly by federal courts." See Robertson v. Simpson, 624 F.3d 781, 784 (6th Cir. 2010). The burden is on a habeas petitioner to show that he or she is entitled to the equitable tolling of the one year limitations period. Id .
Although Petitioner does not specifically address the statute of limitations issue, he claims in his petition that the trial court and his trial counsel failed to inform him of his right to appeal and his right to the appointment of appellate counsel.
The alleged actions of a state trial court in failing to give a habeas petitioner notice of his appeal rights at sentencing or failing to appoint counsel to perfect a belated appeal are not extraordinary circumstances that would justify tolling the limitations period. See Miller v. Cason, 49 F.Appx. 495, 497 (6th Cir. 2002).
Moreover, at some point, Petitioner's father went to the St. Clair County Circuit Court Administrator's Office and requested forms to request court-appointed appellate counsel. On July 7, 2005, the Circuit Court Administrator's Office mailed to Petitioner forms to request the appointment of appellate counsel, which was within the one year time frame under M.C.R. 7.205(F) for filing a direct appeal. There is no indication that Petitioner returned these forms to the St. Clair County Circuit Court in a timely fashion. Moreover, Petitioner does not explain why he waited almost seven more years before filing his post-conviction motion for relief from judgment with the trial court. In Miller v. Cason, 49 F.Appx. at 497, the Sixth Circuit held that the alleged actions by the state trial court in failing to give petitioner notice of his appeal rights at sentencing, by not timely appointing counsel to perfect a belated appeal, and by delaying the preparation of the trial transcripts for an unspecified amount of time did not toll the limitations period. Although acknowledging that these actions may have interfered with the petitioner's direct appeals in the state courts in the early 1990's, the Sixth Circuit held that petitioner was not entitled to equitable tolling because he failed to explain why these actions prevented him from filing his habeas petition until 2001. Other cases have reached similar conclusions. See e.g. Steward v. Moore, 555 F.Supp.2d 858, 871-72 (N.D. Ohio 2008)(petitioner was not entitled to equitable tolling of limitations period for filing habeas petition challenging his conviction, on grounds that trial court and counsel failed to advise petitioner of appellate rights, since petitioner failed to establish that he had been diligent in pursuing his right to file a habeas petition or that failure to timely file his habeas petition resulted from circumstances entirely beyond his control). Petitioner is not entitled to equitable tolling of the one year limitations period, because he has failed to argue or show that the circumstances of his case warranted equitable tolling. See Giles v. Wolfenbarger, 239 Fed.Appx. 145, 147 (6th Cir. 2007).
Petitioner's case falls outside of the actual innocence tolling exception enunciated in Souter, because Petitioner has presented no new, reliable evidence to establish that he was actually innocent of the crimes charged. See Ross v. Berghuis, 417 F.3d 552, 556 (6th Cir. 2005). Any actual innocence exception to AEDPA's statute of limitations is also inapplicable, in light of the fact that petitioner pleaded guilty to the charge that he challenges in this petition. See Reeves v. Cason, 380 F.Supp.2d 883, 885 (E.D. Mich. 2005). Petitioner has failed to offer "new reliable evidence" that is "so strong that a court cannot have confidence in the outcome" of his guilty plea. See Connolly v. Howes, 304 F.Appx. 412, 419 (6th Cir. 2008). Any actual innocence claim is also unpersuasive in light of Petitioner's unexplained lengthy delay in pursuing his state and federal post-conviction remedies. See Freeman v. Trombley, 483 Fed.Appx. 51, 64-65 (6th Cir. 2012).
The Court further DENIES petitioner leave to appeal in forma pauperis .