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.

Robinson v. State

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

March 22, 2019

PAUL ROBINSON PETITIONER
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, et al. RESPONDENTS

          ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          DEBRA M. BROWN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge David A. Sanders. Doc. #14.

         I Procedural History

         On or about October 11, 2017, Paul Robinson filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi regarding his conviction for murder and the revocation of his probation on his conviction for mayhem. Doc. #1. Claiming his Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated, Robinson asks the Court to “overturn [his] conviction or at least grant [him] a new trial ….” Id. at 5-6, 8-9, 14.

         On December 14, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge David A. Sanders directed the State of Mississippi to file a response to the petition no later than March 13, 2018. Doc. #5 at 1. On the State's motion, Judge Sanders extended the State's time to respond to May 14, 2018. Docs. #8, #9. On May 11, 2018, the State filed a motion to dismiss. Doc. #11. On or about May 30, 2018, Robinson filed a “Reply Brief.” Doc. #13.

         On August 14, 2018, Judge Sanders issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the State's motion to dismiss be granted and that Robinson's petition for a writ of habeas corpus “be dismissed as untimely filed.” Doc. #14 at 1. Judge Sanders determined Robinson's probation revocation for his mayhem conviction became final on January 25, 2002, and “any federal habeas corpus challenge to the revocation proceeding was due on … January 27, 2003.”[1] Id. at 4. Additionally, Judge Sanders determined Robinson's murder conviction became final on October 20, 2003, and any federal habeas corpus challenge was due on October 20, 2004. Id.

         On August 31, 2018, the Court received from Robinson a document titled, “Summary of Judgement, ” the substance of which this Court construes as an objection to the Report and Recommendation. Doc. #16. On September 13, 2018, the State filed a response to it. Doc. #18.

         II Standard of Review

          Under 28 U.S.C § 636(b)(1)(C), “[a] judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report … to which objection is made.” “[W]here there is no objection, the Court need only determine whether the report and recommendation is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” United States v. Alaniz, 278 F.Supp.3d 944, 948 (S.D. Tex. 2017) (citing United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989)).

         III Analysis

         “This case is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A), which imposes a one-year deadline for filing habeas petitions from the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review.” Green v. Banks, No. 1:18-CV-181, 2018 WL 6169223, at *1 (S.D.Miss. Nov. 26, 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2), “[t]he federal limitations period is tolled while a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review is pending.” O'Neal v. Banks, No. 1:17-CV-22, 2017 WL 1483298, at *2 (N.D. Miss. Apr. 25, 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted).

         In his objection, Robinson argues he suffered ineffective assistance of counsel and was illegally sentenced, which he contends are exceptions to the one-year limitations period. Doc. #16 at 3-4. Also in his objection, Robinson raises claims of actual innocence to his convictions for mayhem and murder.

         A. ...


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.