Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sanders v. Monroe County Mississippi

United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Aberdeen Division

January 4, 2017

DAVID SANDERS PETITIONER
v.
MONROE COUNTY MISSISSIPPI and STATE OF MISSISSIPPI RESPONDENTS

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          SHARION AYCOCK U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter comes before the Court on the pro se petition of Mississippi inmate, David Sanders, for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondents have moved to dismiss the petition as time barred, and despite having been afforded an opportunity to do so, Petitioner has failed to respond. For the reasons set forth below, Respondents' motion will be granted, and the instant petition will be dismissed as untimely filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).

         Facts and Procedural Background

         Sanders pleaded guilty and was convicted of grand larceny in the Circuit Court of Monroe County on January 23, 2013.[1] Doc. #7-1. He was sentenced to ten years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (“MDOC”), with credit for time served and the remainder of the sentence suspended with five years of post-release supervision. Id. On December 18, 2013, his suspended sentence was revoked for the following reasons: failure to live without violating the laws of the State of Mississippi; failure to pay court costs, fines, and restitution; and failure to pay supervision fees. Doc. #7-2. As a result of the revocation, Sanders was sentenced to serve his original ten-year sentence in the custody of MDOC. Id.

         On or about October 14, 2016, Sanders filed the instant petition challenging his revocation and resulting sentence. Doc. #1. Respondents subsequently moved to dismiss the petition as untimely filed, and Petitioner has failed to respond to the motion. This matter is ripe for review.

         Law and Analysis

         The issue of whether Respondents' motion should be granted turns on 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), which provides:

(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 -
(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review;
(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application created by State action in violation of the Constitution or the laws of the United States is removed, if the applicant was prevented from filing by such State action;
(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
(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.
(2) The time during which a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending shall not be counted toward ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.