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.

Thompson v. Alabama Board of Pardons & Paroles

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

February 11, 2015

WILLIE THOMPSON, # 134669, Petitioner,
v.
ALABAMA BOARD OF PARDONS & PAROLES, et al., Respondents.

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

CHARLES S. COODY, Magistrate Judge.

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 prisoner Willie Thompson ("Thompson") on January 29, 2013.[1] Thompson challenges the revocation of his parole on August 3, 2009.

I. BACKGROUND

Thompson was convicted of murder in March 1983 in the Circuit Court of Lowndes County, Alabama, and was sentenced to 50 years in prison. See Doc. No. 14-1 at 34.[2] In May 2007, he was granted parole. Id. On June 26, 2009, his parole officer filed a parole-violation report with the Alabama Board of Pardons & Paroles ("Board") alleging he had violated the conditions of his parole by committing a new criminal offense, specifically, first-degree sexual abuse. Id. at 34-35. A parole-court hearing was held on July 10, 2010. Based on the evidence, the hearing officer found Thompson guilty of violating the conditions of his parole and recommended that his parole be revoked. Id. at 37-41. On August 3, 2009, after considering the evidence presented at parole court and the findings and recommendation of the hearing officer, the Board revoked Thompson's parole. Id. at 44-45.

On April 18, 2011, Thompson filed a petition for a common-law writ of certiorari in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Alabama, alleging that the Board had denied him due process and equal protection in revoking his parole. See Doc. No. 14-1 at 4-12. On June 30, 2011, the circuit court entered an order denying Thompson's petition for a common-law writ of certiorari. Id. at 46-47.

Thompson appealed to the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, and on December 2, 2011, that court affirmed the circuit court's judgment in an unpublished memorandum opinion. Doc. No. 14-2 at 41-45. Thompson moved for rehearing, which was overruled on January 13, 2012. Id. at 47. He then filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Alabama Supreme Court. On February 15, 2012, the Alabama Supreme Court ordered that his petition for writ of certiorari be stricken as untimely filed. Id. at 56.

On January 29, 2013, Thompson filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. No. 1), asserting claims arising from an alleged lack of due process and equal protection in his 2009 parole revocation proceedings. Specifically, he asserts (1) he was deprived of a two-tiered hearing procedure in the revocation of his parole as required, he says, under Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972), and (2) he did not receive the required written statement of the evidence relied upon and the reasons for revocation of his parole.[3] Doc. No. 1 at 7-8.[4]

The respondents argue that Thompson's § 2254 petition is time-barred under the one-year federal limitation period in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Doc. No. 14. After careful review of the pleadings, evidentiary materials, and applicable law, the court concludes no evidentiary hearing is required and that Thompson's petition should be denied as untimely.

II. DISCUSSION

Title 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) provides the limitation period for federal habeas petitions and 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 ...

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.