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.

Windeknecht v. Villmer

United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division

February 12, 2015

LARRY WINDEKNECHT, Petitioner,
v.
TOM VILLMER, Respondent,

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CATHERINE D. PERRY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter is before me on Larry Windeknecht's petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petition is barred by the limitations period. Therefore, I will direct petitioner to show cause why this action should not be dismissed as untimely.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d):

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.

On May 21, 2010, petitioner pled guilty to attempted enticement of a child less than fifteen years of age. Missouri v. Windeknecht, No. 09JE-CR04532-01 (Jefferson County). The trial court entered its judgment the same day, sentencing him to seven years' imprisonment. Petitioner did not file a direct appeal.

In Missouri, a judgment "becomes final at the expiration of thirty days after its entry if no timely authorized after-trial motion is filed." Mo. S.Ct. R. 81.05(a)(1). Accordingly, the judgment became final on about June 20, 2010.

The limitations period ran for 57 days, until petitioner filed his motion for postconviction relief on August 16, 2010. Windenknecht v. Missouri, No. 10JECC-00731 (Jefferson County).

The parties voluntarily dismissed the motion on October 20, 2010. He did not file a timely appeal, so the judgment became final on December 19, 2010.

Petitioner filed a successive Rule 24.035 on January 10, 2011. Windenknecht v.Missouri, No. 11JE-CC00034 (Jefferson County). The court dismissed the action as ...


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.