United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
DEIONDRA R. BUTLER, # 281018, Petitioner,
WALTER MYERS, et al., Respondents.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
M. BORDEN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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 Deiondra R. Butler on June 13, 2016. Doc. 1.
Butler challenges his 2012 robbery conviction and resulting
50-year sentence entered by the Circuit Court of Montgomery
County. The respondents argue that Butler's petition is
time-barred by the one-year federal limitation period for
§ 2254 petitions. Doc. 7 at 5-9. After reviewing the
pleadings and other submissions, the court concludes that no
evidentiary hearing is required and that Butler's
petition should be denied as untimely.
November 28, 2012, a Montgomery County jury found Butler
guilty of first-degree robbery, in violation of Alabama Code
§ 13A-8-41. Doc. 7-1 at 17. On that same date, the trial
court sentenced Butler to 50 years in prison. Doc. 7-3 at 87.
Butler appealed, and on March 15, 2013 the Alabama Court of
Criminal Appeals affirmed his conviction and sentence by
memorandum opinion. Doc. 7-6. Butler took no further action
on direct review, and the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
issued a certificate of judgment on April 3, 2013. Doc. 7-7.
September 30, 2013, Butler filed a pro se petition
in the trial court seeking post-conviction relief under Rule
32 of the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure. See Doc.
7-8 at 9. The trial court denied the Rule 32 petition on
March 31, 2014, and Butler appealed. On August 22, 2014, the
Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial
court's denial of the Rule 32 petition. Doc. 7-11. Butler
took no further action in his Rule 32 appeal, and the Alabama
Court of Criminal Appeals issued a certificate of judgment on
September 10, 2014. Doc. 7-12.
acting pro se, filed this § 2254 petition on
June 13, 2016. Doc. 1. He claims that (1) the trial court
erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal; (2)
his trial counsel was ineffective during plea bargain
negotiations; and (3) the limitation period in the
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
(“AEDPA”) unconstitutionally deprives him of the
right to federal habeas review. Doc. 1 at 5-9 & 16-18.
AEDPA's One-Year Limitation Period
28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) of AEDPA provides the statute of
limitations for § 2254 petitions:
(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