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.

Bolden v. Stewart

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

May 24, 2019

JIMMY BOLDEN, # 130861, Petitioner,
v.
CYNTHIA STEWART, et al., Respondents.

          RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          STEPHEN M. DOYLE, 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 Jimmy Bolden on August 25, 2017. (Doc. 1).[1] Bolden challenges his 2007 Elmore County conviction for first-degree sexual abuse and his resulting sentence of 15 years in prison. According to Bolden, his 15-year sentence exceeded the authorized maximum for his offense. See (Doc. 1) at 2-3. Respondents argue that Bolden's petition is time-barred under the federal limitation period. See (Doc. 8) at 3- 4. The Court agrees and finds Bolden's petition should be denied without an evidentiary hearing and this case dismissed with prejudice.

         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. 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.