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.

Minnifield v. Hick

United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division

October 14, 2014

KENNEDY MINNIFIELD, # 130651, Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN HICK, et al., Respondents.

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

SUSAN RUSS WALKER, Chief Magistrate Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

This case is before the court on a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by Alabama inmate Kennedy Minnifield ("Minnifield") on May 13, 2014.[1] Doc. No. 1. Minnifield challenges the constitutionality of his convictions and sentence as a habitual felony offender, entered in 2006 by the Bullock County Circuit Court, on charges of first-degree theft of property, second-degree escape, and second-degree sexual abuse. The respondents (Doc. No. 7) argue that Minnifield's petition is time-barred under the one-year limitation period. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).[2] Upon review of the pleadings, evidentiary materials, and applicable law, the court concludes that no evidentiary hearing is required and that Minnifield's petition should be denied as untimely.

II. DISCUSSION

Title 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) states:

(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 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.
(2) The 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.

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).

State Court Proceedings

Exhibits submitted by the respondents reflect that on October 24, 2006, Minnifield pled guilty in the Bullock County Circuit Court to charges of first-degree theft of property, second-degree escape, and second-degree sexual abuse. Ex. D at 1-2. On that same date, Minnifield was sentenced as a habitual felony offender ...


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.