Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
Chambers v. Jones
United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Southern Division
April 13, 2015
DEWAYNE B. CHAMBERS, # 176305, Petitioner,
KARLA JONES, et al., Respondents.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
TERRY F. MOORER, Magistrate Judge.
This case is before the court on a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by state inmate Dewayne B. Chambers ("Chambers") on January 26, 2015. Doc. No. 1. Chambers challenges his conviction for unlawful distribution of a controlled substance (cocaine) and the resulting 42-year sentence of imprisonment entered against him in January 2012 by the Circuit Court of Houston County, Alabama. He argues that the state trial court (1) failed to advise him of the correct sentencing range before he entered his guilty plea; (2) erred by allowing him to be sentenced to two five-year enhancements not charged in the indictment; and (3) erred by summarily denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea without holding an evidentiary hearing. Id. at 5-8.
The respondents have filed an answer (Doc. No. 9) in which they argue that Chambers's petition is time-barred by the one-year limitation period applicable to § 2254 petitions, as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Upon review of the pleadings, evidentiary materials, and applicable law, the court concludes that no evidentiary hearing is required and that Chambers's petition should be denied as untimely.
Title 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA") provides the statute of limitations 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 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).
Proceedings in ...
Buy This Entire Record For