Source: http://va.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20140107_0000021.WVA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-02-26 23:29:58
Document Index: 621214317

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

Respondent argues in the motion to dismiss that the petition was not timely filed. Habeas petitions filed under § 2254 are subject to a one-year period of limitation. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).[4] The applicable period for the instant petition began to run from the date on which the judgment of conviction became final.[5] 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A); see United States v. Clay , 537 U.S. 522, 524 (2003) (holding a conviction becomes final once the availability of direct review is exhausted). The one-year filing period is tolled while a convict's "properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review" is "pending." 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2); see Wall v. Kholi, ___ U.S. ___ , 131 S.Ct. 1278, 1288-89 (2011) (discussing proceedings that qualify as collateral review).
Petitioner's § 2254 petition is untimely under § 2244(d)(1)(A). Petitioner's convictions from the Circuit Court of Washington County became final on April 20, 2007, when the time expired for Petitioner to file a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States. See U.S. Sup.Ct. R. 13(1) (stating appellant must file a petition for a writ of certiorari within ninety days of the judgment being appealed). Petitioner filed his state habeas petition more than 200 days after his conviction became final, and Petitioner waited more than 1, 300 days to file the instant federal petition. Even with the benefit of statutory tolling, Petitioner filed the instant habeas petition more than one year after the judgment of conviction became final.[6]
Petitioner had the active involvement of counsel before and after his conviction, and I do not find any extraordinary circumstances in this record that prevented Petitioner from filing a timely petition.[7] See id. at 2566-68 (Alito, J., concurring) (describing how the Court's precedent makes it "abundantly clear" that attorney negligence, other than abandonment, is not an extraordinary circumstance to warrant equitable tolling); Harris , 209 F.3d at 331 ("[A] mistake by a party's counsel in interpreting a statute of limitations does not present the extraordinary circumstance beyond the party's control where equity should step in to give the party the benefit of his erroneous understanding."). Accordingly, Petitioner filed his federal habeas petition challenging the judgment imposed by the Circuit Court of Washington County more than one year after the judgment became final, Petitioner is not entitled to equitable tolling, and the petition must be dismissed.[8]