Source: http://me.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180419_0000154.DME.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-10-20 15:25:45
Document Index: 381679356

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2254', '§ 2244', '§ 301', '§ 201', '§ 2254', '§ 2244', '§ 2254']

FindACase™ | Nguyen v. Liberty
Nguyen v. Liberty
HUY VAN NGUYEN, Petitioner,
RANDALL LIBERTY, WARDEN Respondent
In this action, Petitioner Huy Van Nguyen seeks relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Petition, ECF Nos. 1, 16.) The State has requested dismissal because, the State argues, the petition was not timely filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). (Response, ECF No. 20.)
After a review of the petition and the State's request for dismissal, I recommend the Court grant the State's request, and dismiss the petition.
Petitioner was indicted in February 2006 for kidnapping, in violation of 17-A M.R.S. § 301(1)(B)(1), and intentional or knowing murder, in violation of 17-A M.R.S. § 201(1)(A). (State v. Nguyen, No. ALFSC-CR-2006-00073 (Me Super. Ct., York Cty.), State Court Record (“Record”), ECF No. 20-1 at 3.) The State dismissed the kidnapping charge at the beginning of the June 2007 ten-day jury trial. (Response at 2 n.1; Record at 3, 14-17.) The jury found Petitioner guilty of murder. (Record at 17.)
Petitioner filed a motion for a new trial; following a November 2007 hearing, the court denied the motion in January 2008. (Record at 17-19.) In April 2008, the court sentenced Petitioner to a 45-year term of imprisonment. (Record at 20.) In July 2008, the Sentence Review Panel denied Petitioner's application for leave to appeal from the sentence. (State v. Nguyen, No. SRP-08-246, Record at 23.)
On March 2, 2010, the Law Court affirmed the judgment. State v. Nguyen, 2010 ME 14, 989 A.2d 712. Petitioner did not file a petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court.
On December 20, 2011, Petitioner filed a state court petition for post-conviction review. (Nguyen v. State, No. ALFSC-CR-2011-02726 (Me. Super. Ct., York Cty.), Record at 29.) The trial court entered the denial of the petition on February 18, 2016. (Record at 32.) The Law Court denied discretionary review on June 22, 2016. (Nguyen v. State, No. Yor-16-124, Record at 34-35.)
Petitioner filed another state court petition for post-conviction review in December 2016; the court summarily dismissed the petition in February 2017. (Nguyen v. State, No. YRKCD-CR-2016-01090 (Unified Criminal Docket, York Cty.), Record at 37.)
In his section 2254 petition, which Petitioner signed on June 15, 2017, and was filed on June 22, 2017, Petitioner asserts claims based on the jury instructions, the admission of impeachment evidence, and the prosecutor's closing argument. (Petition at 5-10.)
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a), a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court may apply to a federal district court for writ of habeas corpus “only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” Title 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), which governs the time within which a petitioner must assert a claim under § 2254, provides: