United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF
M. LAWSON United States District Judge.
King pleaded guilty in August 2010 to assaulting a prison
employee and was sentenced to a prison term in November of
that year. He did not file a timely direct appeal. He
attempted to invoke his appellate remedies five years later,
but the state appellate court rejected his filing as coming
too late. Because his recent habeas corpus petition
challenging his assault conviction likewise was filed out of
time, the Court will dismiss it upon summary review.
See Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases,
28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254 (requiring the Court to review
promptly a habeas corpus petition when it is filed, and
dismiss it if it plainly appears from the face of the
petition that the petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus
serving his sentence at the Woodland Center Correctional
Facility in Whitmore Lake, Michigan. In his petition for a
writ of habeas corpus, filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, he
alleges that he was convicted after pleading guilty in the
Ionia County, Michigan circuit court of assault of a prison
employee. He tendered his plea on August 31, 2010 and was
sentenced on November 5, 2010 to one to five years in prison.
did not attempt to appeal his conviction until sometime in
2015. The Michigan Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal on
July 5, 2016, because King's application for leave to
submit a delayed appeal was not filed within the time period
specified by Michigan Court Rule 7.205(G)(3) (2011), which
sets a six-month time limit for filing delayed appeals.
People v. King, No. 333438 (Mich. Ct. App. July 5,
2016). When Kings was sentenced, the time limit was one year.
See Mich. Ct. Rule 7.205(F)(3) (2008). The version
of the rule in effect does not matter, since King's
filing was late even under the longer deadline. There is no
indication that King attempted to file an application for
leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court.
September 1, 2016, King filed a post-conviction motion for
relief from judgment in the trial court, which was denied.
People v. King, No. 10-14872 (Ionia Cty. Cir. Ct.
Nov. 20, 2017). He has not yet filed an appeal from the
denial of that motion, although he says that he plans to do
petition for a writ of habeas corpus was filed in this Court
on March 1, 2018. The petition is difficult to understand,
but King appears to argue that he is mentally ill, he is the
victim of retaliation at the prison where he is incarcerated,
he was not provided witnesses at the sentencing hearing, and
his trial counsel was ineffective. King also included
statements that might suggest an argument that his guilty
plea was coerced and that he was not mentally competent to
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
(“AEDPA”) became effective on April 24, 1996 and
governs the filing date for this action because the
petitioner filed his petition after the AEDPA's effective
date. See Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 336 (1997).
The AEDPA amended 28 U.S.C. § 2244 to include a one-year
period of limitations for habeas petitions brought by
prisoners challenging state court judgments. Vroman v.
Brigano, 346 F.3d 598, 601 (6th Cir. 2003). The one-year
statute of limitations runs 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.
28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). A habeas petition filed outside
the prescribed time period must be dismissed. See Isham
v. Randle, 226 F.3d 691, 694-95 (6th Cir. 2000) (case
filed 13 days after limitations period expired dismissed for
failure to comply); W ...