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.

Dobine v. Burt

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

May 4, 2015

LEE DOBINE, #206854, Petitioner,
v.
SHERRY BURT, Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, DENYING THE MOTION TO HOLD PETITION IN ABEYANCE, DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, AND DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

VICTORIA A. ROBERTS, District Judge.

I. Introduction

Michigan prisoner Lee Dobine ("Petitioner") filed a pro se Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state criminal proceedings. Petitioner pleaded guilty to armed robbery and was sentenced to life imprisonment in the Lenawee County Circuit Court in 1990. In his pleadings, he raises claims concerning the state courts' denial of his successive post-judgment motion, the validity of his sentence, and the effectiveness of counsel. On March 31, 2015, the Court ordered Petitioner to show cause why his habeas petition should not be dismissed as untimely under the one-year statute of limitations applicable to federal habeas actions. On April 23, 2015, Petitioner filed a response to the Court's order asserting that his claims have merit and moving to hold the petition in abeyance so that he can return to the state courts to exhaust claims concerning the effectiveness of trial and appellate counsel.

The Court further reviewed the matter and concludes that the habeas petition is untimely, must be dismissed, and that an abeyance and stay of the proceedings are unwarranted. The Court also concludes that a certificate of appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal must be denied.

II. Procedural History

Petitioner pleaded guilty to armed robbery in the Lenawee County Circuit Court and was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1990. Following sentencing, he filed an appeal with the Michigan Court of Appeals, which affirmed his conviction. People v. Dobine, No. 125942 (Mich. Ct. App. Feb. 21, 1992) (Dkt.). Petitioner filed an application for leave to appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court, which was denied. People v. Dobine, 441 Mich. 862, 490 N.W.2d 411 (Oct. 12, 1992).

Petitioner subsequently filed a motion for relief from judgment with the state trial court, which was denied on October 11, 2004. Pet. App'x. A. Petitioner apparently did not appeal that decision. Petitioner filed a second motion for relief from judgment with the state trial court, which was denied on June 13, 2013. Id.; People v. Dobine, No. 89-4397-FC (Lenawee Co. Cir. Ct. June 13, 2013). Petitioner then filed a delayed application for leave to appeal with the Michigan Court of Appeals, which was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. People v. Dobine, No. 318196 (Mich. Ct. App. Oct. 11, 2013). Petitioner filed an application for leave to appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court, which was denied. People v. Dobine, 495 Mich. 979, 843 N.W.2d 769 (March 28, 2014).

Petitioner dated his federal habeas petition on March 10, 2015.

III. Discussion

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2241 et seq., became effective on April 24, 1996. The AEDPA includes a one-year period of limitations for habeas petitions brought by prisoners challenging state court judgments. The statute provides:

(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 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 ...

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.