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.

Farnsworth v. Brewer

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

March 27, 2017

Brandon Farnsworth, Petitioner,
v.
Shawn Brewer, Respondent.

          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 [1]

          JUDITH E. LEVY United States District Judge

         Petitioner 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).

         Respondent 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.

         I. Background

         Petitioner 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.[1]

         On 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.

         On 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 motion.

         On 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 this motion.

         Petitioner 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.[2]Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition, arguing that the petition was filed after the statute of limitations had run.

         II. Analysis

         The 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 ...

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.