Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Simmons v. Stewart
United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Southern Division
January 16, 2019
ROBERT ANTHONY SIMMONS, # 282973, Petitioner,
v.
CYNTHIA STEWART, et al., Respondents.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
STEPHEN M. DOYLE UNITED STATES MAGISRATE JUDGE
I.
INTRODUCTION
This
case is before the court on a petition for writ of habeas
corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by Alabama inmate
Robert Anthony Simmons on June 28, 2016. Doc.
1.[1]Simmons challenges his convictions and
resulting sentence for first-degree sexual abuse and
first-degree sodomy entered by the Houston County Circuit
Court in 2012. He presents claims that his trial counsel
rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by (1) failing to
properly investigate his case and (2) failing to call his son
as a corroborative witness. The respondents argue that
Simmons's petition is time-barred by the one-year federal
limitation period. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244d. Docs.
6 & 14. The court agrees with the respondents and finds
that Simmons's petition should be denied without an
evidentiary hearing.
II.
DISCUSSION
A.
AEDPA's One-Year Limitation Period
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).
B.
Simmons's State ...