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.

Moss v. Winn

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

June 19, 2019

STEVEN LEE MOSS, Petitioner,
v.
THOMAS WINN, Respondent.

          OPINION AND ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO FILE ADDITIONAL RULE 5 MATERIALS AND AN ANSWER TO THE PETITION

          LINDA V. PARKER U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Petitioner Steven Lee Moss (“Petitioner”), confined at the Saginaw Correctional Facility in Freeland, Michigan, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In his application, filed by attorney David L. Moffitt, Petitioner challenges his convictions for possession with intent to deliver 1, 000 or more grams of cocaine in violation of Michigan Compiled Laws § 333.7401(2)(a)(i) and possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony in violation of Michigan Compiled Laws § 750.227b. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition arguing that it is barred by the applicable statute of limitations, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). Petitioner filed a response to the motion to dismiss. For the reasons that follow, the Court is denying Respondent's motion.

         I. Background

         Petitioner was convicted following a bench trial in the Oakland County Circuit Court. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions on Petitioner's appeal of right. People v. Moss, No. 319954, 2015 WL 3604582 (Mich. Ct. App. June 9, 2015). On December 22, 2015, the Michigan Supreme Court denied Petitioner leave to appeal. People v. Moss, 872 N.W.2d 474 (2015).

         On March 22, 2017, Petitioner filed a post-conviction motion for relief from judgment in the trial court, which the court denied. People v. Moss, No. 2013-2444744-FC (Oakland Cty. Cir. Ct. Apr. 21, 2017). Petitioner filed an application for leave to appeal, which the Michigan Court of Appeals denied. People v. Moss, No. 340609 (Mich. Ct. App. Mar. 15, 2018). Petitioner filed an application for leave to appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court. On May 30, 2018, while his application was pending, Petitioner filed his pending federal habeas petition. The Michigan Supreme Court subsequently denied Petitioner leave to appeal. People v. Moss, 918 N.W.2d 817 (2018).

         II. Applicable Law & Discussion

         Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), a one-year statute of limitations applies to a petition for the writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to a state court judgment. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). The one-year limitations period 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.

Id. “AEDPA also contains a tolling provision, which specifies that ‘[t]he 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 any period of limitation under this subsection.'” Holbrook v. Curtin, 833 F.3d 612, 615 (6th Cir. 2016) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2)).

         Petitioner is not relying on a newly recognized constitutional right or on newly discovered facts, and he has not alleged that a state-created impediment prevented him from filing a timely petition. Consequently, the relevant subsection here is § 2244(d)(1)(A), which states that a conviction becomes final at “the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review.”

For petitioners who pursue direct review all the way to [the Supreme] Court, the judgment becomes final at the “conclusion of direct review”-when [the Supreme] Court affirms a conviction on the merits or denies a petition for certiorari. For all other petitioners, the judgment becomes final at the “expiration of the time for seeking such ...

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.