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.

Lasley v. Attorney General of State of Mississippi

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

March 4, 2019

DEWELLEYN LASLEY PETITIONER
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, ET AL. RESPONDENTS

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          MICHAEL P. MILLS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This matter comes before the court on the pro se petition of Dewelleyn Lasley 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. Lasley responded to the motion, 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

         Mr. Lasley pled guilty to attempted robbery in the Circuit Court of Alcorn County, Mississippi, and was sentenced by Order filed April 7, 2009, to a term of fifteen years with “credit for time served with balance suspended” followed by five years of post-release supervision and Lasley being placed on supervised probation for the first five years of his sentence. See Exhibit A (Sentencing Order and Transcript of plea and sentencing hearing). On October 1, 2009, the Alcorn County Circuit Court entered an “Order of Modification of Post-Release Supervision, ” finding that Lasley should remain on post-release supervision, despite his failure to meet the conditions of his post-release supervision and setting a payment deadline and schedule for monthly fees. See Exhibit B. The court's order further provided that, if Lasley “fails to abide by all original terms and conditions or fails to make scheduled payments on supervision fees and court ordered monies, he will be brought back before the court for revocation proceedings.” Id. Shortly thereafter, on December 3, 2009, the trial court entered an “Order Revoking Post-Release Supervision, Imposition of Sentence, Followed by Post Release Supervision, ” finding that Lasley had violated the terms of his post-release supervision, revoking the prior order suspending his sentence and ordering that Lasley be required to serve five years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC). See Exhibit C. The order further provided that the remaining nine years would continue as suspended, conditioned on Lasley's good behavior and ordered that, upon his release from the MDOC, Lasley would be placed on post-release supervision for five years. Id.

         The records of the Alcorn County Circuit Court reflect that Lasley filed a “Motion for Sentence Modification, ” that he failed to date, but which was stamped as “filed” in that court on April 7, 2011. See Exhibit I. This motion for post-conviction relief was denied by Order filed October 1, 2014. See Exhibit J. The docket of the Alcorn County Circuit Court reflects that Lasley did not appeal the trial court's decision (see Exhibit K), and the Mississippi Supreme Court's records, as posted on the court's official website, do not reflect that any such appeals have been filed in that court.

         Lasley's discharge certificate reflects that he was released on June 24, 2012, and that he was “remanded to the supervision of the Mississippi Probation and Parole Board to complete the suspended portion of this sentence under the jurisdiction of the court.” See Exhibit D.

         On February 26, 2013, Lasley's post-release supervision was revoked again, and he was ordered to serve a term of nine years in the custody of the MDOC, with four years suspended, followed by four years of post-release supervision. See Exhibit E (Order and Transcript of revocation). Lasley states in his petition, and his MDOC records confirm, that he was released on September 12, 2015, after serving the five years imposed by the court's 2013 order. Lasley's discharge certificate reflects that, upon his discharge, he was “remanded to the supervision of the Mississippi Probation and Parole Board to complete the suspended portion of this sentence under the jurisdiction of the Court.” See Exhibit F.

         However, Lasley again violated the terms of his supervision, and on June 13, 2018, the Alcorn County Circuit Court entered an Order revoking Lasley's post-release supervision and sentenced Lasley to serve four years in the custody of the MDOC. See Exhibit G. Lasley's inmate time computation sheet reflects that he is currently serving the four years imposed in June 2018. See Exhibit H.

         In the instant petition, Mr. Lasley raises four grounds for relief, all of which challenge his 2009 plea and sentence. He argues: (1) defective indictment; (2) ineffective [assistance] of counsel-failed to research, misadvised petitioner with regard to discovery and failed to show or discuss the plea petition with petitioner, nor did petitioner sign one; (3) violated due process - not sentenced until April 7, 2009, and discovery dated and signed November 14, 2008; and (4) [sentence] exceeded the maximum penalty. ECF Doc. 1.

         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 ...

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.