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.

Stone v. Outlaw

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

July 9, 2019

FREDRICO STONE PETITIONER
v.
TIMOTHY OUTLAW, ET AL. RESPONDENTS

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          SHARION AYCOCK U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This matter comes before the court on the pro se petition of Fredrico Stone 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). The petitioner has 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

         On July 26, 2013, a jury found Fredrico Stone guilty of possession of a controlled substance as a habitual offender under Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-81, and the Coahoma County Circuit Court sentenced Stone to serve sixteen (16) years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC), to run consecutively to any and all sentences previously imposed. See Exhibit A[1] (Judgment and Sentence, Coahoma County Circuit Court, Cause No. 2012-0105).[2] Mr. Stone appealed, and on October 6, 2015, the Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed Stone's conviction and sentence. Stone v. State, 188 So.3d 593 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015), reh'g denied, April 12, 2016 (Cause No. 2014-KA-00480-COA). He did not seek certiorari review in the Mississippi Supreme Court.

         The docket in Coahoma County Circuit Court Cause No. 2012-0105 reflects that, on November 2, 2016, Stone filed a Motion for Records and Transcripts, which the circuit court denied on December 12, 2016. See Exhibit F (Order Dismissing Motion for Records and Transcripts). In its order, the circuit court found that, because “Stone filed a direct appeal of his conviction and sentence, ” it was “without jurisdiction to consider the motion.” Id. The circuit court also held that “filing a proper PCR motion is a prerequisite to obtaining free records and transcripts, ” and it did “not construe Stone's filing as a motion pursuant to the Mississippi Uniform Post-Conviction Collateral Relief Act, although Stone does mention that he would like to file a PCR motion.” Id.

         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 counted toward ...

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.