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.

Wells v. Harry

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

March 10, 2017

GLYNN L. WELLS, Petitioner,
v.
SHIRLEE HARRY, Respondent.

          OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

          DAVID M. LAWSON, United States District Judge

         Petitioner Glynn L. Wells filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 1990 state criminal convictions of assault with intent to murder, two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, unarmed robbery, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony following a jury trial in the Wayne County Circuit Court. He raises 14 claims in his petition, but he did not file his petition within the one-year limitation period set out in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). On January 31, 2017, the Court entered an order requiring the petitioner to show cause why this case should not be dismissed as untimely. The petitioner responded on February 28, 2017. Because Wells did not comply with the one-year statute of limitations applicable to federal habeas actions, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), and the petition is not saved by equitable tolling, the Court must dismiss the petition and deny relief.

         I.

         The petitioner was convicted and sentenced in 1990. The Michigan Court of Appeals ultimately affirmed his convictions and sentences in 1992. People v. Wells, No. 129335 (Mich. Ct. App. Dec. 29, 1992) (per curiam). It appears that the petitioner did not file a direct appeal in the Michigan Supreme Court.

         In 2015, the petitioner filed a motion in the state trial court to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, to dismiss the complaint and warrant and information, for a cause and prejudice hearing, to remand for an evidentiary hearing, and for relief from judgment. The trial court summarily denied the motions under Michigan Court Rule 6.502(B)(2), finding that the petitioner's ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim was addressed on direct appeal and that his other claims provided no basis for relief. People v. Wells, Nos. 89-009805-01-FC, 89-011032-01-FH (Wayne Co. Cir. Ct. May 7, 2015). The Michigan court also denied reconsideration. The petitioner filed an application for leave to appeal in the Michigan Court of Appeals, which was denied under Michigan Court Rule 6.508(D)(3)(a) and (b) because it asserted issues that could have been raised previously and failed to establish good cause and actual prejudice for not doing so. People v. Wells, No. 327598 (Mich. Ct. App. Aug. 11, 2015). The Michigan Court of Appeals also denied reconsideration. People v . Wells, No. 327598 (Mich. Ct. App. Oct. 6, 2015). The petitioner then filed an application for leave to appeal in the Michigan Supreme Court, which was similarly denied under Michigan Court Rule 6.508(D). People v. Wells, 499 Mich. 983, 881 N.W.2d 479 (July 26, 2016).

         The petitioner's federal habeas petition is dated January 3, 2017.

         II.

         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. AEDPA includes a one-year period of limitations for habeas petitions brought by prisoners challenging state court judgments. The statute states:

         (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 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 post-conviction 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.