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.

Copple v. Turner

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

August 14, 2018

DANIEL PAUL COPPLE PETITIONER
v.
MARSHAL TURNER and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI RESPONDENTS

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

         This matter comes before the Court on the pro se petition of Mississippi inmate, Daniel Paul Copple, on a petition for 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 Copple has filed a response to the motion. This matter is now ripe for resolution. Having fully considered the record, arguments of the parties, and the applicable law, Respondents' motion will be granted and the instant petition dismissed with prejudice, for the reasons set forth below.

         I.

         Factual and Procedural History

         On December 8, 2011, Copple was convicted of two counts of murder and one count of aggravated assault in the Circuit Court of Lowndes County, Mississippi, and was sentenced to life imprisonment on each murder conviction and fifteen years' imprisonment on the aggravated assault conviction. Doc. #11-1. On July 16, 2013, the Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed Copple's convictions and sentences. Copple v. State, 117 So.3d 651 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (2012-KA-00237-COA). Copple failed to seek rehearing in the Mississippi Court of Appeals.

         After filing numerous pleadings in State courts, Copple filed a federal habeas petition on or about May 16, 2018, challenging his State-court convictions and sentences. Doc. #1 & Doc. #2.

         II.

         Legal Standard

         The 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 ("AEDPA"). 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 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.

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). The federal limitations period is tolled while a "properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review" is pending. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). In "rare and exceptional circumstances," the limitations period may be equitably tolled. Felder v. Johnson, ...


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.