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.

Miles v. Stephenson

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

March 6, 2017

MARTIN L. MILES, Petitioner,
v.
GEORGE STEPHENSON, Respondent,

          OPINION AND ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, AND GRANTING LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS

          HONORABLE ARTHUR J. TARNOW UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Martin L. Miles, (“Petitioner”), confined at the Thumb Correctional Facility in Lapeer, Michigan, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his convictions for first-degree felony murder, unlawfully driving away an automobile, felony firearm, and carrying a dangerous weapon with unlawful intent. Respondent filed a renwed motion to dismiss the petition for writ of habeas corpus, contending that petitioner failed to comply with the statute of limitations contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).[1] For the reasons stated below, petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus is SUMMARILY DISMISSED.

         I. Background

         Petitioner was convicted following a jury trial in the Macomb County Circuit Court.

         Direct review of petitioner's conviction ended in the Michigan courts on October 4, 1988, when the Michigan Supreme Court denied petitioner leave to appeal following the affirmance of his conviction on his appeal of right by the Michigan Court of Appeals. People v. Miles, No. 82689 (Mich.Sup.Ct. Oct. 4, 1988).

         On March 30, 2012, petitioner filed a post-conviction motion for relief from judgment, which was denied. People v. Miles, No. 85-743-FC (Macomb Cty. Cir. Ct., Apr. 25, 2012). After the Michigan Court of Appeals denied petitioner leave to appeal, See People v. Miles, No. 310997 (Mich.Ct.App. Apr. 17, 2013), post-conviction review of the case ended on July 30, 2013, when the Michigan Supreme Court denied petitioner's post-conviction appeal. People v. Miles, 494 Mich. 884, 834 N.W.2d 493 (2013).

         Petitioner signed and dated his original habeas petition on May 20, 2014.[2]

         On October 24, 2014, this Court granted petitioner's motion to hold the petition in abeyance so that he could return to the state courts and file a second post-conviction motion for relief from judgment. Miles v. Bergh, No. 2:14-CV-12131, 2014 WL 5473196 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 24, 2014).

         Petitioner returned to the state courts and filed a second post-conviction motion for relief from judgment, which was denied. People v. Miles, No. 1985-0743-FC (Macomb Cty.Cir.Ct. Jan. 7, 2015). The Michigan appellate courts denied petitioner leave to appeal. People v. Miles, No. 325826 (Mich.Ct.App. May 4, 2015); lv. den. 499 Mich. 966, 880 N.W.2d 549 (2016).

         On August 29, 2016, this Court lifted the stay, amended the caption, and permitted petitioner to file an amended habeas petition raising additional claims. Miles v. Stephenson, No. 2:14-CV-12131, 2016 WL 4502437 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 29, 2016).

         II. Discussion

         Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition for writ of habeas corpus on the ground that the petition was not filed in compliance with the statute of limitations. In the statute of limitations context, “dismissal is appropriate only if a complaint clearly shows the claim is out of time.” Harris v. New York, 186 F.3d 243, 250 (2d Cir.1999); See also Cooey v. Strickland, 479 F.3d 412, 415-16 (6th Cir. 2007).

         Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), a one year statute of limitations shall apply to an application for writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to a judgment of a state court. The one year statute of limitation 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 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.