Source: http://ms.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20140218_0000052.NMS.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2016-12-02 17:56:39
Document Index: 480909137

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2254', '§ 2244', '§ 97', '§ 99', '§ 99', '§ 99', '§ 2244', '§ 2244']

| Johnson v. Epps
Johnson v. Epps
United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Western Division
MARCUS JERMAINE JOHNSON, Petitioner,v.CHRISTOPHER EPPS, et al., Respondents.
This matter comes before the court on the pro se petition of Marcus Jermaine Johnson for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The state has moved to dismiss the petition as untimely filed, and the petitioner has responded. The matter is ripe for review. For the reasons set forth below, the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus shall be DISMISSED with prejudice as untimely filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).
The petitioner, Marcus Johnson, is in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections and is currently housed at the Walnut Grove Correctional Facility in Walnut Grove, Mississippi. Johnson pled guilty to one count of felony aggravated assault domestic violence (Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-7(2) and (4)) in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Mississippi. He was sentenced on April 8, 2008, to serve twenty years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. By statute, there is no direct appeal from a guilty plea. See MISS. CODE ANN. § 99-35-101.
Johnson filed a motion for post-conviction relief in the Montgomery County Circuit Court on October 5, 2010 (signed October 1, 2010). ECF, Doc. 1-1, pp. 43-53. He amended his Post-Conviction Relief motion on March 16, 2011. He filed a mandamus petition in the Mississippi Supreme Court on October 8, 2012, which the court dismissed for lack of information and documentation. On October 31, 2012, Johnson filed another mandamus petition in the Mississippi Supreme Court, which the Court dismissed as moot, finding that the PCR motion had been denied by the circuit court on October 12, 2012. (Order from Miss. Sup.Ct. Case no. 2012-M-01641) and (Order from Circuit Court). The records of the Mississippi Supreme Court show that the petitioner has not filed an appeal of the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief in that court.
C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or
Johnson's petition became final on May 8, 2008, thirty days after he was sentenced on his guilty plea. See Miss. Code Ann. § 99-35-101. Though there is a state statutory prohibition against appealing a judgment based upon a guilty plea, Mississippi had recognized an exception when the petitioner challenged only the legality of his sentence, not the validity of his conviction. Burns v. State, 344 So.2d 1189 (Miss. 1977). Though this does not apply to appeals taken after July 1, 2008, the date of new amendments to Miss. Code Ann. § 99-35-101, Seals appealed his sentence before that date. Seal v. State, 38 So.3d 635 (Miss. App. 2010). He was thus permitted to challenge his sentence via direct appeal, though he did not do so. Thus, his deadline to seek federal habeas corpus relief became May 8, 2009, one year after his conviction became final. Roberts v. Cockrell, 319 F.3d 690 (5th Cir. 2003). Johnson filed no state post-conviction applications prior to the May 8, 2009, federal habeas corpus deadline; as such, he does not enjoy the benefit of statutory tolling of the deadline under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2), and his deadline remains May 8, 2009.
Under the "mailbox rule, " the instant pro se federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus is deemed filed on the date the petitioner delivered it to prison officials for mailing to the district court. Coleman v. Johnson, 184 F.3d 398, 401, reh'g and reh'g en banc denied, 196 F.3d 1259 (5th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1057, 120 S.Ct. 1564, 146 L.Ed.2d 467 (2000) (citing Spotville v. Cain, 149 F.3d 374, 376-78 (5th Cir. 1998)). In this case, the federal petition was filed sometime between the date it was signed on August 15, 2012, and the date it was received and stamped as "filed" in the district court on August 20, 2012. Giving the petitioner the benefit of the doubt by using the earlier date, the instant petition was filed 1, 995 days after the May 8, 2009, filing deadline. The petitioner does not allege any "rare and exceptional" circumstance to warrant equitable tolling. Ott v. Johnson, 192 F.3d 510 (5th Cir. 1999). The instant petition will thus dismissed with prejudice and without evidentiary hearing as untimely filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). A final judgment consistent with this memorandum opinion shall issue today.