United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Stephanie Dawkins Davis, Mag. Judge
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS, DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, AND
DENYING PETITIONER LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS
E. LEVY United States District Judge
Brandon James Farnsworth, incarcerated at the G. Robert
Cotton Correctional Facility in Jackson, Michigan, filed a
pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges his
conviction of first-degree criminal sexual conduct. Mich.
Comp. Laws § 750.520b(1)(a).
filed a motion to dismiss the petition, arguing the petition
was barred because it was filed after the statute of
limitations- contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)-had
run. (Dkt. 8.) For the reasons stated below, the petition for
a writ of habeas corpus is denied.
pleaded guilty to two counts of first-degree criminal sexual
conduct pursuant to plea agreement. On July 10, 2013,
Petitioner was sentenced to concurrent sentences of forty to
sixty years in prison. Petitioner did not file a direct
appeal with the Michigan Court of Appeals.
January 21, 2014, Petitioner filed a motion for
“post-appeal relief” with the trial court,
stating that because he did not file a timely appeal, he was
requesting a sentence reduction in this manner instead. (Dkt.
9-4.) On March 4, 2014, the trial court denied
Petitioner's motion pursuant to Mich. Ct. R. 6.508(D),
the rule governing post-conviction motions for relief from
judgment. (Dkt. 9-6.) Petitioner did not appeal the denial of
his post-conviction motion.
October 22, 2015, Petitioner filed a motion for “relief
from fines and costs, ” which was denied. People v.
Farnsworth, No. 13-004072-FC (Jackson Cty. Cir. Ct. Oct.
23, 2015). Petitioner did not appeal the denial of this
December 9, 2015, Petitioner filed a “motion to
suppress statements, ” which the trial court denied as
an improperly filed successive motion for relief from
judgment. (Dkt. 9-8.) Petitioner did not appeal the denial of
signed and dated his petition for writ of habeas corpus on
March 15, 2016, and it was received by the Court on March 22,
2016.Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the
petition, arguing that the petition was filed after the
statute of limitations had run.
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
(“AEDPA”) imposes a one-year statute of
limitations on petitions for habeas relief. 28 U.S.C. §
2244(d). AEDPA provides that:
(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 ...