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.

Futral v. Crow

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

January 18, 2019

JOHNNY SHANNON FUTRAL, # 201076, Petitioner,
v.
JOHN CROW, et al., Respondents.

          RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          CHARLES S. COODY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 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 Johnny Shannon Futral (“Futral”) on December 9, 2016. Doc. # 1.[1] Futral challenges his convictions and resulting sentence for two counts of first-degree sodomy entered by the Autauga County Circuit Court in 1998. He claims his sentence is illegal because he entered a plea agreement with the State providing for 20-year sentences for each conviction but his plea agreement form was altered so that he received concurrent terms of life in prison for each conviction. Id. at 5 & 13. The respondents argue that Futral's petition is time-barred by the one-year federal limitation period. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Doc. # 7. The court agrees with the respondents and finds that Futral'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. Futral's State ...


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.