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.

Jones v. King

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

February 11, 2019

THOMAS JONES, PETITIONER
v.
RON KING, ET AL. RESPONDENTS

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          MICHAEL P. MILLS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         On July 15, 2014, the Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed Jones' judgment of conviction and sentence. See Jones v. State, 149 So.3d 1060 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014), reh'g denied, October 28, 2014 (Cause No. 2012-KA-02031). After his petition for rehearing was denied, he did not seek timely discretionary review in state court by filing a petition for writ of certiorari to the Mississippi Supreme Court. See Miss. R. App. P. 17.

         This matter comes before the court on the pro se petition of Thomas Jones 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. Jones has responded, 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 dismissed as untimely filed.

         Facts and Procedural Posture

         Petitioner Thomas H. Jones is currently in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections and housed at the Central Mississippi Correctional Facility in Pearl, Mississippi. He was convicted of sexual battery of a child under fourteen in the Circuit Court of Tunica County, Mississippi. Jones was sentenced on December 12, 2012, to serve a term of twenty-five (25) years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. See Exhibit B.[1]

         The records of the Mississippi Supreme Court reflect that Jones' application for post-conviction relief challenging his conviction for sexual battery of a child under the age of fourteen was signed on July 9, 2015, and stamped as “filed” in the Mississippi Supreme Court on July 14, 2015. See Exhibit D (application without exhibits). On October 14, 2015, the Mississippi Supreme Court denied Jones' application for lack of merit. See Exhibit E.

         Mr. Jones filed several motions after the denial of his application for leave to proceed, and the Mississippi Supreme Court treated these as motions for reconsideration. See Exhibit F (docket in Cause No. 2015-M-1054). The Mississippi Supreme Court dismissed these motions on November 17, 2015, and January 13, 2016, respectively, under Miss. R. App. P. 27(h) as not properly before the court. See Exhibit G. Mr. Jones filed another “Supplemental Pleading” a year later on February 10, 2017, which was likewise dismissed as not properly before the court under Miss. R. App. P. 27(h). See Exhibit H.

         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 ...

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.