United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Aberdeen Division
DANNY A. SOLOMON PETITIONER
THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI and ATTORNEY GENERAL JIM HOOD RESPONDENTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
SHARION AYCOCK U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter comes before the Court on the pro se petition
of inmate Danny Solomon for a writ of habeas corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2254. Respondents have moved to dismiss the
petition as time-barred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244,
and Solomon has filed a response in opposition to the motion.
For the reasons set forth below, Respondents' motion will
be granted, and the instant petition will be dismissed with
and Procedural History
Solomon pleaded guilty to the crimes of sexual battery and
burglary in Oktibbeha County Circuit Court Case No.
2009-0157-CR. Doc. #11-1 at 5-6, 8-11. On April 19, 2011, the
circuit court sentenced Solomon to consecutive terms of seven
years' imprisonment for the burglary conviction and
twenty years' imprisonment for the sexual-battery
conviction, with ten years suspended. Id.
about March 5, 2013, Solomon submitted a “Petitio[n]
for a Sentence Reduction” in Oktibbeha County Circuit
Court Case No. 2013-0121-CVK. Doc. #11-3. The motion was
dismissed on May 1, 2013. Id. at 4. According to the
dockets of the circuit court, Solomon did not appeal this
decision. Docs. #11-1 and #11-2.
Solomon submitted a “Motion for Post-Conviction
Collateral Relief” in Oktibbeha County Circuit Court
Case No. 2013-0121-CVK that was signed on June 29, 2017 and
stamped filed on July 5, 2017. Doc. #11-4. The circuit court
dismissed the motion on July 25, 2017. Id. at 8.
According to the dockets of the circuit court, Solomon did
not appeal this decision. Docs. #11-1 and
filed the instant petition on or about August 18, 2017.
Although he failed identify the contested judgment(s) in his
petition, the Court construed his petition as challenging his
sexual battery conviction because of the nature of
Solomon's allegations. See Docs. #1 and #6.
instant petition for writ of habeas corpus is subject to the
statute of limitations of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective
Death Penalty Act of 1996 (''AAEDPA'').
Egerton v. Cockrell, 334 F.3d 433, 436 (5th Cir.
2003). The issue of whether Respondents' motion should be
granted turns on the statute's limitation period, which
(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