Source: http://ms.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190114_0000192.SMS.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-10-20 02:00:14
Document Index: 742948292

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

FindACase™ | Daughtery v. State
Daughtery v. State
FRANK DAUGHTERY PETITIONER
This matter is before the Court on Respondent's Motion to Dismiss [11], to which Petitioner Frank Daughtery has failed to respond. Respondent argues that the petition, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, should be dismissed because it is untimely, or, alternatively, because Daughtery has failed to exhaust state court remedies, and federal review of his claims is now barred. For the reasons explained below, the undersigned recommends that the Motion to Dismiss be granted, and this case be dismissed.
In this action, Daughtery challenges his plea and sentences imposed by the Circuit Court of Walthall County for two counts of unlawful touching of a child. Petitioner originally pleaded guilty and was sentenced by the court on August 17, 2009 to a term of fifteen (15) years with five (5) years suspended on Count I, to run consecutively to a term of fifteen (15) years imposed on Count II, to be served in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections.
The State asserts that by statute, there is no direct appeal from a guilty plea, see Miss. Code Ann. § 99-35-101, and that state court records indicate that no post-conviction motions have been filed by Petitioner. The State argues that the petition should be dismissed as untimely filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). The State further submits that this Court's review of Daughtery's claims is barred by Sones v. Hargett, 61 F.3d 410 (5th Cir. 1995).
Amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (''AEDPA''), § 2244(d) reads as follows:
(d)(1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The limitation period shall run from the latest of B
28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1996).
Daughtery's conviction became final on August 17, 2009, the date of his guilty plea. See Roberts v. Cockrell, 319 F.3d 690 (5th Cir. 2003). There is no evidence that he made a “properly filed” application for State post-conviction or other collateral review under § 2244(d)(2). Accordingly, Daughtery's petition for a writ of habeas corpus was due in this Court by August 17, 2010. Instead, he filed[1] his petition on November 15, 2017, over seven (7) years after the August 17, 2010, deadline. Accordingly, because Daughtery's petition is untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244, the petition must be dismissed.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Furthermore, no state post-conviction relief would now be available to Daughtery because the three-year limitations period for state post-conviction relief has run. See Miss. Code Ann. &sect; 99-39-5(2). Thus, Petitioner has technically exhausted his state court remedies on these claims, see Sones, 61 F.3d at 415, and his claims would now be procedurally barred in state court. A federal court may not review the merits of a procedurally-barred claim, absent a showing either of cause for the default and actual prejudice or that failure to address the claim would result in a miscarriage of ...