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.

Bell v. Lee

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

March 20, 2018

SYLVESTER BELL PETITIONER
v.
EARNEST LEE, ET AL. RESPONDENTS

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          MICHAEL P. MILLS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter comes before the court on the pro se petition of Sylvester Bell for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The State has moved to dismiss the petition as untimely filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). Mr. Bell has responded to the petition, and the matter is ripe for resolution. For the reasons set forth below, the State's motion to dismiss will be granted and the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus will be dismissed as untimely filed.

         Facts and Procedural Posture

         Sylvester Bell pled guilty to statutory rape in the Circuit Court of Tunica County, Mississippi and was sentenced on July 6, 20017, as a habitual offender to serve a term of thirty years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. That same day, Bell pled guilty to a two-count indictment for armed robbery (Count 1) and aggravated assault (Count II). ECF Doc. 6, pp. 62-69. The court sentenced Bell to serve ten years on each count to run concurrently with each other, and both Counts I and II were ordered to run concurrently with his sentence on the statutory rape charge. ECF Doc. 6, pp. 53-54.

         Records of the Tunica County Circuit Court and the Mississippi Supreme Court reflect that Bell filed documents challenging his plea and sentence in both courts. On October 12, 2009, Bell signed a “Motion for Post-Conviction Collateral Relief, ” which was stamped as filed on October 19, 2009, in the Tunica County Circuit Court. The trial court denied this motion on January 19, 2011. Bell appealed the trial court's decision, and the Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's denial of relief on September 4, 2012. Bell v. State, 105 So.3d 401 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012), reh'g denied, January 15, 2013 (Cause No. 2011-CP-00214). The mandate of the state appellate court issued on February 5, 2013.

         About four years after filing his original petition (and shortly after the appellate court's decision on his first post-conviction), Bell signed a second motion for post-conviction relief on April 9, 2013, which was filed in the Tunica County Circuit Court on April 15, 2013. The trial court denied Bell's motion on June 27, 2014, as a successive petition, finding no exceptions to the procedural bar. The trial court also denied Bell's motion for rehearing on November 5, 2014. Bell appealed the lower court's decision, and the Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's denial of relief. Bell v. State, 207 So.3d 705 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016), reh'g denied, October 11, 2016, cert. denied, January 12, 2017 (Cause No. 2014-CP-1370-COA). The mandate of the court of appeals issued on February 2, 2017.

         One-Year Limitations Period

         Decision in this case is governed by 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 postconviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending shall not be ...


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.