Source: http://mi.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190405_0001322.EMI.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-05-29 05:31:19
Document Index: 229822837

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2254', '§ 750', '§ 750', '§ 750', '§ 750', '§ 769', '§ 2244']

FindACase™ | Williams v. Campbell
DERRICK HAROLD WILLIAMS, Petitioner,
OPINION AND ORDER SUMMARILY DENYING THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, DENYING THE MOTION FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING, DECLINING TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, AND DENYING PETITIONER LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS
Derrick Harold Williams, (“Petitioner”), confined at the Gus Harrison Correctional Facility in Adrian, Michigan, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges his conviction for armed robbery, M.C.L.A. § 750.529, assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder, M.C.L.A. § 750.84, felonious assault, M.C.L.A. § 750.82, and felony-firearm, M.C.L.A § 750.227b. Defendant was sentenced as a habitual offender (fourth offense), M.C.L.A. § 769.12.
Petitioner was convicted following a jury trial in Wayne County Circuit Court. On March 30, 2012, petitioner was sentenced to 40 to 60 years in prison for armed robbery, 40 to 60 years for assault with intent to commit great bodily harm less than murder, 5 to 15 years for felonious assault, and two years for felony-firearm.
Petitioner filed a direct appeal with the Michigan Court of Appeals, which affirmed his convictions. People v. Williams, No. 311038, 2013 WL 3766578, at *1 (Mich. Ct. App. Jul. 18, 2013). Petitioner did not file an application for leave to appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court. (ECF 9-16, PageID.866).[1]
On August 7, 2015, petitioner filed a post-conviction motion for relief from judgment, 328 days after the statute of limitations for filing a habeas petition expired. Following the denial of his motion for relief from judgment, petitioner filed his application for leave to appeal the denial with the Michigan Court of Appeals. The Michigan Court of Appeals denied petitioner leave to appeal. People v. Williams, No. 332029 (Mich. Ct. App. Jul. 14, 2016); lv. den. 500 Mich. 978; 893 N.W.2d 338 (2017).
Petitioner filed his habeas petition with the Court on July 27, 2018.[2]
Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition for a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that the petition was not filed in compliance with the statute of limitations. In the statute of limitations context, “dismissal is appropriate only if a complaint clearly shows the claim is out of time.” Harris v. New York, 186 F.3d 243, 250 (2d Cir.1999); see also Cooey v. Strickland, 479 F.3d 412, 415-16 (6th Cir. 2007).
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), which was signed into law on April 24, 1996, amended the habeas corpus statute in several respects, one of which was to mandate a statute of limitations for habeas actions.
Title 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) imposes a one-year statute of limitations upon petitions for habeas relief: