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.

Moore v. Woods

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

February 27, 2018

RICKY MOORE, Petitioner,
v.
JEFFREY WOODS, Respondent.

         OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT'S MOTIONTO DISMISS T61, DISMISSING THE HABEAS CORPUS PETITION Ml. DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION TO AMEND T81, DECLINING TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, AND GRANTING LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS

          HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter is before the Court on petitioner Ricky Moore's pro se habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, petitioner's motion to amend the petition, and respondent Jeffrey Woods' motion to dismiss the petition. Petitioner seeks to challenge his convictions and sentences for conspiracy to commit armed robbery, Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 750.157a and 750.529, assault with intent to rob while armed, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.89, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.227b. Respondent urges the Court to dismiss the petition on the basis that petitioner did not comply with the one-year statute of limitations for habeas petitions. The Court agrees with respondent that the petition is time-barred. Accordingly, respondent's motion will be granted, the petition will be dismissed, and petitioner's motion to amend will be denied as moot.

         I. Background

         The state court provided the following brief summary of the facts leading to the charges against petitioner:

On January 26, 2009, defendant [Ricky Moore], Robert Bates, and Jonathan Walker were involved in the attempted, but unsuccessful, robbery of Misbah Hans, an apartment building owner. The next day, defendant [Moore] and Danny Gaskins returned to the apartment building. Gaskins went inside claiming to be interested in renting an apartment. While Hans was showing Gaskins an apartment, Gaskins pulled a gun, shot Hans multiple times, and then ran. Hans died. Criminal charges against Bates, Walker, Gaskins and defendant [Moore] were filed.

People v. Moore, No. 299287, 2012 WL 2160983, at *1 (Mich. Ct. App. June 14, 2012).

         Petitioner was tried before a jury in Wayne County Circuit Court, and on May 28, 2010, the jury found him guilty of two counts of conspiracy to commit armed robbery, one count of assault with intent to rob while armed, and two counts of possessing a firearm during the commission of a felony. On June 30, 2010, the trial court sentenced petitioner to two years in prison for the felony-firearm convictions, followed by concurrent terms of life imprisonment with the possibility of parole for the conspiracy and assault convictions.

         On appeal from his convictions, petitioner argued that (1) the trial court abused its discretion and violated his right of confrontation by limiting his right to cross-examine witnesses, and (2) the evidence was insufficient to support his conspiracy and assault convictions. On June 14, 2012, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed petitioner's conviction in an unpublished, per curiam opinion, see id., and on October 22, 2012, the Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal. See People v. Moore, 493 Mich. 871; 821 N.W.2d 550 (2012).

         On July 17, 2013, petitioner filed a motion for relief from judgment in the state trial court. He alleged that: (1) the trial court abused its discretion and violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution by sentencing him to life imprisonment; (2) he was entitled to a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence that he did not participate in the charged crimes; (3) inadmissible hearsay was admitted at his trial; (4) the prosecutor denied him a fair trial by (a) shifting the burden of proof and (b) presenting an audio recording of an individual who did not testify; and (5) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to (a) object to the use of audio recordings, (b) object to prosecutorial misconduct, and (c) call a witness who had information concerning petitioner's innocence.

         The trial court denied petitioner's motion, and on April 29, 2015, the Michigan Court of Appeals denied petitioner's application for leave to appeal the trial court's decision. See People v. Moore, No. 325929 (Mich. Ct. App. Apr. 29, 2015). On March 29, 2016, the Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal for failure to establish entitlement to relief under Michigan Court Rule 6.508(D). See People v. Moore, 499 Mich. 881; 876 N.W.2d 538 (2016).

         On October 10, 2016, Petitioner signed his habeas petition, and on October 13, 2016, he allegedly placed his petition in the prison mailing system for mailing to the Court. On December 7, 2016, the Clerk of the Court filed the petition. Petitioner alleges as grounds for relief the two claims that he raised on direct appeal and the five claims that he raised during state collateral proceedings.

         Respondent asserts that petitioner's claims are barred from substantive review by the applicable statute of limitations. Petitioner maintains in a response to respondent's motion that his petition is timely, and in his motion to amend the petition, petitioner seeks to show "cause and prejudice" for any procedural errors that he committed in state court.

         II. Analysis

         A. The Statute of Limitations

         The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) established a one-year period of limitations for state prisoners to file their federal habeas corpus petitions. Wall v. Kholi, 562 U.S. 545, 550 (2011) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)); Holbrookv. Curtin, 833 F.3d 612, 615 (6th Cir. 2016) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)), cert, denied sub nom. Woods v. ...


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.